In California Practice
Volume 2, Part I
Section 8.183 -- Maritime Cases
Part Thirteen of the British System
" . . . STATE TRIBUNALS . . . HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OVER MARITIME CASES."
WHETHER A CIVIL CASE IS OF ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME JURISDICTION DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO IT IF THE CLAIM IS IN CONTRACT, AND UPON THE LOCALITY OF THE TRANSACTION OR THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY IF THE CLAIM IS IN TORT."
" ... A RIGHT SANCTIONED BY THE MARITIME LAW MAY BE ENFORCED THROUGH ANY APPROPRIATE REMEDY RECOGNIZED AT COMMON LAW. THUS THE STATE MUST FOLLOW THE SUBSTANTIVE MARITIME LAW, ALTHOUGH IT CAN ENFORCE SUCH LAW THROUGH ANY COMMON LAW REMEDY. ACCORDINGLY, THE STATE HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS IN PERSONS AGAINST ONE WHO HAS VIOLATED A MARITIME CONTRACT OR COMMITTED A MARITIME TORT, SINCE COMMON LAW COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY ENTERTAINED SUCH PROCEEDINGS. A STATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION WHERE THE SUIT IS IN PERSON AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, AUXILIARY ATTACHMENT AGAINST A PARTICULAR THING OR AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT IN GENERAL."
SECTION 8:184. IN GENERAL
"GENERALLY, THE STATE COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS IN FEDERAL CIVIL MATTERS, UNLESS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS PROVIDE OTHERWISE. FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ARE EXPRESSLY GIVEN CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN SOME MATTERS BY FEDERAL STATUE, INCLUDING . . . LIABILITY ACT ACTIONS, . . ."
There is another subject matter that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Admiralty that we should all be aware of; and that is "Revenue Causes:"
In Delovio v. Boit, the court said: "A third exposition requires an examination of the authority and powers of the Vice Admiralty Courts in the United States under the colonial government . . . The commissions of the crown gave the courts, which were established, a most ample jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, and over torts and injuries, as well in ports as upon the high seas. And acts of parliament by giving or confirming cognizance of all seizures for contraventions of the revenue laws." (emphasis added) And in the Huntress Case: "For more than a century before the formation of the Constitution, that is, from the early part of the reign of Charles II, revenue causes had been heard and tried in the colonies by courts of Vice Admiralty." (emphasis added)
Neither the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor any subsequently enacted statutes have modified the originally established jurisdictional boundaries over revenue causes in this country. In summary, some subject matters and causes that are exclusively with Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction are:
- Limited Liability
- Bills, notes, and checks issued by the US Government
- Credit borrowed into circulation by the US Government
- Violation of a maritime contract
- Commission of a Maritime tort (for example, failure to perform an obligation founded in a maritime contract.)
These are exclusively within the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Maritime -- whether the claim is so identified or not!
Judge Friendly also said that the Lincoln Hills Doctrine (dealing with labor contracts and commerce) was "pregnant with possibilities." In this context the friendly judge was talking about the possibilities of Federal courts increasing their powers because of the nature of the source, and the nature of the right being enforced. That source being the credit voyage -- and that right being derived from a maritime contract under Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction.
We are constantly told that, today, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Well, that is perfectly true, if this voyage were lawful one -- it is absolutely not true, if this voyage (the source of its increased powers) was unlawful from its inception. The task before us is clear. Maybe we can take a page or two from their own book. The facts and law presented here today are truly pregnant with possibilities for those of us who want to apply them effectively!!
Now that we understand the particulars of how we have been tricked into joining this maritime voyage for profit, and what, and where our remedies are, we will then have to know much more fact and law, in order to do this: we will have to know how to analyze and determine which jurisdiction a particular issue is in -- or should be in; we will have to know courtroom procedures for that particular jurisdiction, we will have to understand the essential issues and know them inside out and front ward and backwards; we will have to develop a winning strategy to apply and use this knowledge most effectively.
Years ago, particularly in the late 1970's many of us were bringing Civil, Common Law, actions in State and Federal courts -- based on alleged violations of Constitutional and Common Law rights under color of law. All of these complaints were summarily dismissed on the grounds that "There is no cause of action stated for which the court can grant relief."
Others have relied on Common Law defense in criminal actions. There have been a few minor "victories" -- some stalemates -- many outright losses -- and, never, a substantive win. Even in criminal cases, some of us have been told that: "Your law is valid and sound, but your conclusions are wrong." What were the courts telling us?
Let's consider a hypothetical situation. You are in San Francisco, short of funds, and hear about a fantastic voyage on a ship about to set sail from port -- security and profits guaranteed!! You go down to the ship and sign up to the voyage. Let's also assume that material facts about the voyage are withheld from you, in order to induce you to sign up -- and, that the contemplated voyage was in violation of the positive laws of the Law of Nations, and was contrary to the meaning and intent of the United States Constitution.
Nevertheless, the ship sets sail in the middle of the night -- when no one was watching from the shore. After a week at sea, you have discovered that concealment of material facts -- and that you are on an unlawful voyage. You go to the Captain, inform him of your newly discovered evidence -- and demand your Constitutional and Common Law rights, as a United States citizen. What do you suppose the Captain is going to do??
He has no jurisdiction to hear Common Law complaints -- his sole responsibility is to insure the safety of the voyage, under Maritime Law. His only jurisdiction is under maritime law. He sees you as possibly influencing other members of the crew -- thereby fomenting a mutiny. To him, his duty is clear: He must mete out a form of punishment, to some degree, thereby instilling in other members of the crew a fear of joining in that line of conduct. Therefore, he may give you one of two alternatives: (1) Go back to work and continue to perform, and I will forgive this outburst, and allow you to remain on this voyage, if you agree to pay a penalty which I shall determine and impose. (2) If you refuse to perform, I will order you to be confined to the Brig.
What, in this situation, is your recourse? Obviously none, until you get back to a port. Let's say that, eventually, that port is New York -- now, what can you do that makes sense? (1) If you can find a court of Common Law jurisdiction, you can file a Common Law action. The only proper issue in this court being fraud, and fraud is not easy to prove. Now, we know that there are no Common Law courts in New York -- and we know why.
So, where does that leave you?? (2) The only place left for you to go is into an Admiralty court, and you can find a proper court of Admiralty jurisdiction, in New York, to hear these issues. You can file an action in admiralty where the proper issues are, under Admiralty and Maritime Law, the unlawfulness of the voyage itself, from its inception, pursuant to the Positive law of the Law of Nations -- all going directly to the issue of jurisdiction, based on the fact that the contract was a nullity, ab initio.
Now, you have a proper cause of action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction!!
The possibilities are truly pregnant because we can prove several violations of the general Maritime Law of all nations -- laws that were developed to protect the merchants and enhance commerce -- laws that any Maritime court in the world is bound by!! To deny these laws, and properly presented facts and issues, would, thereby, destroy the very foundations that this mercantile superstructure is based upon.
After many futile attempts with Common Law issues and actions, that, just possibly, there may be something more to the law being applied in the courts than we knew about. It dawned on us that a far more comprehensive approach to the problem, than had ever been attempted before, would have to be undertaken if there was any possible solution AT LAW.
We are all involved in a situation that not only is enslaving us, but will make the lives of our children and grand-children unbearable. If we are to experience true freedom, we must educate ourselves now. We, as sovereign individuals, have all the power we need to turn this insane system around.
END OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
This document has been edited by Eldon G.Warman, of 702 - 54 Ave, SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2V 0E1 email@example.com. This brief identifies the chains with which they, the Merchants of Venice, their direct descendants and their lackeys, have used to make, we the people of North America into debt slaves.
The Merchants of Venice bastardized the many courts of Europe during the Middle Ages so as to effect their continued control, which they had established during the period after the collapse of the Roman Empire, up to the Dark Ages and through the Middle Ages period.
In 1776 (as indicated on the symbolic pyramid on the Federal Reserve $1.00 note), the continuation of their control was revealed as the Illuminati. This was the grand organization (or, re-organization, as they would have us believe) of the Masonic Lodge. The direct effect on us was their influence in the various mixings of the Law of the Sea with the Law of the Land in the British Limited Monarchy system. The situation is as a frog immersed in cold water brought slowly to a boil; the poor creature doesn't recognize the temperature change and cooks unaware.
In the latter half of another webpage I have posted on the internet, I explain how the British Monarchy has exchanged the Anglo-Saxon Common Law, based solely upon God's Law - the Golden Rule - 'Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you', for British (so-called) Common Law, a form of Roman Civil Law.
Find it here: Treason
The "Founding Fathers" of the USA were all Masons, a commonly known fact. A recent revelation shows that the Constitution of the USA is "Ultra Vires" because it was never ratified -- by either the Committee of The States, or, more appropriately, by the People. Those signing as "witness" after Article VII were members of a committee to draft the Constitution. Witnessing would be the procedure to show unanimous approval of the draft by the committee members involved.
The next step should have been "approval" by the Committee of the States, the representative organization of the States mandated in the Articles of Confederation, Section 5 (AD1777). The final step should have been a "ratification" vote by the eligible voters in all the States concerned. There is no evidence that the latter two steps ever took place, thus making the present Constitution of the USA an unratified draft. Instead, it was only ratified by the corporate officers (Legislatures) of the incorporated States.
Americans have been deceived into believing that those they elect into State legislatures and Congress are 'representatives' of the people. They are only 'representatives' of that portion of the deck (voting district) of the make-believe ship - corporate body politic for which they become corporate officers. Their total allegiance is to the 'captain' - governor of the make-believe ship.
The Protocols of Zion, the gameplan of the Illuminati and their One World Government movement was apparently brought to public attention as early as 1785. In that program, the plans were set forth to thwart nationalism and common law societies by many devious ways, including the use of Masonry. Were George Washington and his close associates -- all Masons -- involved in the plan to scuttle the Union and the Common Law society destined for the People of North America?
It is quite obvious that the Government of Canada has been using similar tactics to enslave the people of Canada; and, to turn over this country's raw materials to the Overlords who hold the economic strings which control it. The BNA Act of 1867 did not confederate Canada. It only combined four British colonies into one colony, the Dominion (Colony) of Canada. The government was a dictatorship, a Governor General and Council (Canada's Parliament). The status of Canada was similar to that of a ship of the British Admiralty. The status of the people of Canada was similar to sailors on a ship of the British Admiralty; not that of an English freeman.
In 1931, the Statute of Westminster effectively decommissioned the colonies of the British Empire just as they would decommission outdated ships of the Admiralty. Canada was taken over by a usurper clique of financial barons (with Rothchild empire connections and allegiances) at that time, supposedly under the "right of salvage": and, no change has taken place since then. . . . .
At the time of writing of this document, the author was obviously unaware of the status of "US citizen". As originally conceived, the States were independent countries tied together by a pact or treaty in which certain sovereign states rights were given over to a federal government; first in the Articles of Confederation, and then more succinctly in the Constitution of the USA. Each person born within a State or naturalized in a State was a citizen of that State; and then by the "commonality clause" of the Constitution, a citizen of the other States -- a citizen of the USA.
For eminent domain purposes, so that the Federal Government could purchase land (Louisiana Purchase and Alaska Purchase) and enter into international treaties, a piece of land (a Federal State) was provided for in the Constitution (a necessity arising out of the rules governing eminent domain). Since the Federal Government was not given any Saxon Common Law jurisdiction in the Constitution (whether this was by oversight or by designing scheme, considering later circumstance, remains for conjecture) -- but only Maritime jurisdiction, the people within such a federal state (Washington, DC) come under Maritime law. In legal terms, United States only means the District of Columbia, some territories, and navy bases. The United States of America is the combined 50 States.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was supposedly inserted to give the black slaves citizenship which was denied to them by the States; but, in fact, what the 14th Amendment did was just transfer ownership from the private slave owners to the US Federal Government.
It seems that the schemers have multi-layered the traps to ensnare the unwary People into Admiralty jurisdiction. Beyond what the author has revealed in his research within this paper, later research shows other methods. The result would be that one argument would clip one strand of the noose; but, two or three others would still be fatal in and before a Court of Admiralty. For example: Through interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Social Security Act (the act of applying for and receiving a Social Security Number being the binder of the contract), a USA citizen also becomes a US citizen. The former has Common Law RIGHTS, the latter has Maritime PRIVILEGE. The author adequately covers the differences in Common Law and Maritime Law. The former citizenship you were born or "naturalized" into; the latter, you were hoodwinked into.
In the USA, you have the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). You should become "very" familiar with UCC 1-207; as well as UCC 1-103.6. Therein lies your protection and recourse when you are subject to any issue that falls into Admiralty jurisdiction on land - that is, unless the judge, whom you confront, decides that it is for the 'good' of the ship - the body politic that he invoke the 'notwithstanding clause' and disregard even this protection clause.
Links to Further Information on this Topic
How the Crown of Great Britain and the Vatican have maintained a claimed ownership of North America ever since its discovery by the several European nations.
Barefoot Bob offers much good info on the American dilema: Barefoot Bob on The US Constitution
Barefoot Bob's Home Page
Barefoot Bob's Freedom and Survival Page
In Canada, the Magna Carta and Lord Blackstone's Commentaries offer a good source of information on rights. cmlaw13.htm
Back to PART ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE HOME