(A discussion on Admiralty Law, as received...)
From: Larry Becraft [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Bob Hurt; Lex_Rex@yahoogroups.com; LibertyTree@yahoogroups.com; TheAmericanRepublic@yahoogroups.com; Lis-LEAF@yahoogroups.com; Homestead & Credit Restoration; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Tommy Cryer
Subject: Re: Fwd: admiralty & maritime cases & definitions
About 15 years ago, that UCC argument and names in CAPS got started. Both had no substantive legal basis, but they certainly were contentions that could be presented as fantastic, wild tales that appealed to the gullible. I have pointed out the utter insanity of these arguments, only to be defamed by the guru promoters who have sold these arguments for the last 15 years.
In the last 4 or 5 years, the admiralty argument has gained a certain following in the movement. Like the UCC and names in CAPS arguments, this too is one that can be presented as some "conspiratorial" legal argument that allegedly explains everything. But, it too has no substance.
If you would like to divide the law into two separate fields, there is law that applies on land ("terrene"), and another that applies on waters, to rivers and oceans ("maritime"). You can scuba dive in water, but not on land. A ship can sail the oceans, but not sail the highways. A car can drive down a road, but it cannot drive over the water. Admiralty applies to the maritime, but not terrene. I explain admiralty jurisdiction here:
Please read the various materials to which I provide links.
Admiralty promoters like to point out the decision in DeLovio v. Boit for the proposition that insurance is all admiralty. This is incorrect as the issue in this case was whether insurance was entirely terrene, or could in certain instances be within maritime or admiralty jurisdiction. Insurance is created mostly on land, and no insurance companies have their offices on the ocean; these companies pay claims on land. The issue in DeLovio was whether insurance of maritime ventures could be within admiralty jurisdiction, and the court concluded that insurance for such ventures could be within admiralty jurisdiction. But the case does not hold that ALL insurance is admiralty. In fact, most insurance is terrene (I do not drive my car on the ocean). Read this decision that mentions DeLovio and admiralty jurisdiction:
People also like to mention this quote: "A contract for transportation of passengers is maritime contract within admiralty jurisdiction" from the case of Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U.S. 532 (1956), which may be read here:
If you read the case, it involves a claim of breach of a maritime contract for transport of people. The court concluded that this type of maritime contract could be within the jurisdiction of admiralty:
"The truth is that, in a case such as the present one, there is neither an actual promise to repay the passage moneys nor a second contract. The problem is to prevent unjust enrichment from a maritime contract. See Morrison, The Remedial Powers of the Admiralty, 43 Yale L.J. 1, 27 (1933). A court that prevents a maritime contract from being exploited in that way does not reach beyond the domain of maritime affairs. We conclude that, so long as the claim asserted arises out of a maritime contract, the admiralty court has jurisdiction over it."
This case does not stand for the proposition that all contracts to transport people are maritime. A contract to transport people on land is not within admiralty jurisdiction. In fact, most contracts are terrene.
Those cases dealing with taxes involved taxes imposed on maritime commerce, a proper subject of admiralty jurisdiction. However, the Supremes have held that innately, claim for taxes are non-maritime. See US v. Rizzo, 297 US 530, 56 SCt 580 (1936). Posted here:
If people would simply read the authorities linked from my short discussion of admiralty above, they would learn that admiralty simply provides no jurisdiction for matters terrene, and most of us live in a terrene world (except sailors, etc). Hope this helps.
PS: Lots of the alleged authority noted below provides the cite to no legal authority. I refuse to address bold propositions that fail to cite legal authority.
Bob Hurt wrote:
Larry, Darren Michaels, who sent me the below stuff, really craves your opinion on it. I have to admit that venue and jurisdiction with respect to types of action confuse me. He has bought the "everything is admiralty" nonsense and wants to know where he went wrong and why.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Homestead & Credit Restoration*
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Subject: admiralty & maritime cases & defintions
To: "Dr. Alejandro Salvador Reyes, ND PhD" <email@example.com
Maybe Larry B, would like to elaborate on these findings to help us, as a study group, have a better understanding of admiralty & maritime allegations, either by agreeing with or rebutting. "A contract for transportation of passengers is maritime contract within admiralty jurisdiction." Archawski v. Hanioti (1956) 350 US 532, 100 L Ed 676, 76 S Ct 617.
Commercial Law is under Maritime Law [Maritime lien.] But it is judicated under Admiralty. As is International law. Then it all moves to Equity plus any other law that the case may hang on.
Equity Law... As a legal system, it is a body of law that addresses concerns that fall outside the jurisdiction of Common Law. Equity is also used to describe the money value of property in excess of claims, liens, or mortgages on the property.
Equity Law compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can be only a civil action, not criminal. In Equity, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of the contract. But you can go to jail for a "Breach of Trust."
Admiralty/Maritime Law... This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract. The Courts do not want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes.
Just because one doesn't always see the steps in all cases, does not mean, they were not available to the participants.
"/A contract for transportation of passengers is maritime contract within admiralty jurisdiction."/ Archawski v. Hanioti (1956) 350 US 532, 100 L Ed 676, 76 S Ct 617.
"/Commerce includes intercourse, navigation, and not traffic alone/." Lord v. Goodall, Nelson & Perkins S. S. Co. (1881), 102 U.S. 541, 26 L.Ed. 224.
"Term /'commerce'/ as employed in U.S. Const. Art. I §8, is not limited to exchange of commodities only, but includes, as well, 'intercourse' with foreign nations, and between states; and term 'intercourse' includes transportation of passengers." People v. Raymond (1868), 34 C. 492.
/"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..."/ Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307
/"The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities/." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18
Private carriers are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake to deliver goods or passengers in a particular case for hire or REWARD. Rathbun v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 299 Ill 562, 132 N.E. 754, 755, 19 ALR 140; et al. See Black's Law Dictionary p.283, 3rd ed. 1933. [e. a.]
/"[COMMON LAW] Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, [MARITIME]that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."/ Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982. [e.a.]
Choice of law is determined by the contract.
U.S.C. title 9, 18, 28
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333
All commerce is under maritime.
That debt begins in Admiralty whether on land or navigable waters. UNITED STATES V. $5,372.85 UNITED STATES COIN AND CURRENCY, 283 F.Supp. 904, 905-06 (S.D.N.Y.1968)
THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed. Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D.Me. 1840) /"In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, 'including,' etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations,...."/
/"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. 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 [53 U.S. 443, 453] 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."/ [EA} THE PROPELLER GENESEE CHIEF v. FITZHUGH, 53 U.S. 443 (1851)
"/In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, 'including,' etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations/ ...THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed.Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D.Me. 1840) [EA]
"/A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract and therefore of Admiralty Jurisdiction/." DeLovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Case no. 3766 (1815)
Insurance policies are maritime contracts, and federal district court has jurisdiction of action in personam to enforce them. Grow v. Steel Gas Screw Loraine K (1962, CA6 Mich) 310 F 2d 547; Ed & Fred Inc. v. Puritan Marine Ins. Underwriters Corp. (1975, CA5 Fla) 506 F 2d 757.
"saving to suitors" clause of 1789
1st Judiciary Act of 1792
Bills of Lading Act
Admiralty Extension Act
The Public Vessels Act
Suits in Admiralty Act
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act
False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7)
Lanham Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Postal Reorganization Act
Federal Tort Claims Act
Administrative Procedure Act
In Rem Action forfeiture 21 U.S.C. § 881(b), 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) civil forfeiture is "in Rem" instead of "in personam." Federal Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims [C]
Also under In Rem Action divorce, child custody, child support etc., created by the franchise of the marriage license.
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511, FAX +1 (206) 600-5958