YOU ARE IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IN TAX CASES

Even though you research all the code sections, the bottom line is you will find the admiralty/maritime applies to "all revenue cases" as so stated in the court decision in the Huntress. None of admiralty is mentioned in the statutes because it is axiomatic that it deals with admiralty procedures.

For this is proven in the Huntress when the Judge stated;

" If in the clause in the constitution, repeated in the judiciary act, "all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," the word "maritime" has any meaning and was not used merely for the purpose of rounding the phrase, it must include such a contract; and we are not gratuitously to suppose that words, in the constitution, were used without meaning. * * * It must then be conceded, unless this can be made apparent, that the word maritime stands a part of the constitution, either as a significant word, or an unmeaning pleonism."

In the footnote it is stated;

"If the word "maritime" is merely exegetical of "admiralty," one word includes the other, and they may be used interchangeably. Admiralty is maritime jurisdiction, and maritime is admiralty jurisdiction, without limitation or exception. But it is well known that admiralty jurisdiction is twofold, a prize jurisdiction exercised jure belli, extending to all captures in war, as prize, whether on sea or on land: and in a civil jurisdiction over causes civil and maritime springing from a consideration purely maritime. They are so distinct that it has been doubted, in England, whether the judge of an admiralty court can exercise both jurisdictions under one commission. 2 Brown, Civ. and Adm. Law, c.1, p. 29;Id., c6 pg 208; &c; Lindo v Rodney, Doug, 613, note "The addition of the word "maritime," in the constitution, closes the door against all doubtor cravil whether both branches of the jurisdiction are granted See 2 Brown, Civ. & Admin. Law." end of footnote

Continuing, the judge stated;

"The common law, and of course the sense in which the technical words of that law are used, was NEVER IN FORCE IN THIS COUNTRY, and further that as it was adopted by common consent, or by the colonial legislatures. Beyond this, IT WAS AS MUCH A FOREIGN LAW as that of France or Holland. * * * It is again said; that the extension of the jurisdiction of the vice admiralty courts, in the colonies, to revenue causes, was one of the grievances of which they complained, and which, with others, led to the revolution. * * * The terms, "admiralty" and "maritime," belong to the law of nations. as well as to our own DOMESTIC and MUNICIPAL law."

Now in footnote 8 it is stated;

“ * * * 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 a CLEAR PROOF that congress considered these words to be used in the sense which 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, as a court of prize, its jurisdiction is, and was intended to be, IN EVERY SENSE, exclusive of that of state courts. As a maritime, or instance court, its jurisdiction is also exclusive where the remedy can be given only by a court of admiralty. But in cases where the courts of common law have always exercised a concurrent jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is not, and never was intended by the constitution to be, exclusive though the subject matter be maritime.”

Ok so we now all know that a revenue cause has the subject matter being sounded in maritime and as this court was discussing , all maritime has to be by CONTRACT.

So continuing on in footnote 8, which is to large to include here it then states;

“But if they proceed in personam against the master or owners, no man ever doubted that the courts of common law have jurisdiction. But here, to preclude the possibility, congress added the clause saving to suitors the common law remedy where that law could give it. Savings to suitors; undoubtedly to the CREDITOR party, the actor. He has his choice of jurisdiction [NEED I SAY MORE PEOPLE] and the debtor party must abide by that jurisdiction, as in common sense and common right it ought to be; as it in fact is in all other cases of concurrent jurisdiction, between that of common law and equity, as well as between common law and admiralty.”

I have been studying admiralty since 1990 and most people have no clue what it is all about. After reading a few thousand cases in admiralty you soon realize that we have been hoodwinked so badly it is a wonder any of us can function at all in their courts of admiralty. You will see that contract is the underlying part of any revenue cause and maritime claim. How they get that contract, and I don’t mean SS as it is not a contract even by straining so hard you get a hemorrhoid, I leave it to your collective minds. It all boils down to commerce does it not? Why sure because drugs, atf and all the little things they slide on the IMF deals with commerce. Revenue is commerce. Maritime admiralty is all commerce. So did you know that the UCC got its beginnings in admiralty? Don’t believe me so go pull SouthWorth Machinery Co. Inc V F/V Cory Pride, Et Al., 1993 AMC 2216.

And lastly all US Marshals come under admiralty jurisdiction. Obtain the Manual for the United States Marshals, revised Nov 1986 Printed in 1985 AMC 273 under Rule 6.3, BUT you must also get the US marshal Manual printed in 1972 AMC 569, to see the changes to cover their dastardly deeds. Reading this proves all of Title 28 civil is admiralty rules. Under Rule 6.3.2 US Marshals authority it states

“The Marshall’s Service becomes involved in admiralty matters by carrying out orders of the Federal courts (28 USC 569) as well as mandates found in the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Oh there is a lot more that you don’t know until reading this especially since the US Marshals are a private concern and they all must be bonded and they are by a private concern that we found to be in California. I cannot remember the name but admiral Byrd another researcher has that info.

We also contacted a Professor Robinson who teaches admiralty and law at the University of Texas who wrote a books called Admiralty and Federalism which has been pulled from the market because he exposed the fact that the whole damn country is run on admiralty. We had him send us the books that he had left. In the book there is one thing I would like to impress here and that is this quote;

“Not to be outdone, the admiralty practitioners seems to have contended that any time the “civil law” ---- meaning presumably the law merchant or the maritime law— was applicable , admiralty had exclusive jurisdiction.”

Then Robertson says; “ The United States Constitution, in Article III section 2, singles out “cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” as THE ONLY specific subject matter grant of power to the federal judiciary.”

Says a lot huh?

94                                                     JURISDICTION OF MARITIME CASES                                             Ch.1

NOTE ON REMOVAL OF MARITIME ACTIONS

The removal of cases from state court to federal court is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution; the removal statutes (90) are enabled by the necessary and proper clause of Article I. Removal ousts a state trial court of its otherwise proper jurisdiction to hear and decide a case, because the removal statutes are the supreme law of the United States under Article VI. Removal is justified as a means of providing defendants a federal forum in which to try federal questions and diversity of citizenship cases.

Since the saving clause gives plaintiffs the alternative to take maritime cases to state courts, may defendants take away the alternative by removing maritime cases to federal courts in admiralty?

The answer is "No." First, and on Seventh Amendment principle, the plaintiff who entered a state court entitled to jury trial would lose the right in federal admiralty court.(91) Second, the removal statutes do not specifically: enable removal to admiralty, although the language of section 1441(b) could be stretched far enough to reach admiralty (92) Finally, removal to admiralty has never been done; indeed, non-removability was used by Justice Frankfurter to support his decision that the maritime-law theories of claim of injured seamen were not federal questions(93) Hence the saving clause is a one-way street: if the plaintiff commences a maritime action in state court, it ought to stay there.

Maritime actions brought in state court but lying exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction (outside the saving clause) should be dismissed upon suitable motion in state court. Removal to federal court in admiralty is not within the removal statute because federal jurisdiction is not derivative from proper state jurisdiction, and the federal judge, upon removal of an admiralty case, should usually dismiss.(94)

While many federal question actions are removable from state to federal courts, one prominent class of federal question actions is made non-removable by statute, railroad employees' personal injury and wrongful death actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act; (95) and because their statute borrows the FELA, seamen's Jones Act actions (96) are likewise non-removable from state courts(97) But unless excepted by statute, maritime federal question actions are removable from state to federal court(98)

Finally, the saving clause lets plaintiffs bring some maritime actions in state courts--but the diversity jurisdiction then lets defendants of diverse citizenship from the plaintiff remove the actions to federal courts,(99) where they are heard on the diversity "side" (including jury trial). not on the non-jury admiralty side.

90. 28 U.S.C.A. 1441-1451.

91. See Fed.R.Civ. P. 38(e).

92. E.g., J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 369 F.Supp. 692, 1974 AMC 644 (D.S.C.1974) (motion to remand granted).

93. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 371, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368, 1959 AMC 832 (1959).

94. See Armstrong v. Alabama Power Co., 667 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1982).

95. 28 U.S.C.A. 1445(a).

96. 46 U.S.C.A. 688(a).

97. E.g., Sawyer v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc., 577 F.Supp. 37, 1984 AMC 2856 (S.D.Ill. 1982).

98. E.g., Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v.(D.Puerto Rico 1970) (Carriage of' Goods by Sea Act claim; motion to remand denied.

99. See Poirrier v Nickols Drilling Co. 648 F 2d 1063, 1982 AMC 1514 (5th Circuit 1981)

Well people, are there any of you that still say admiralty does not apply to you in any type revenue case? I think this put any argument to the contrary to rest.

The Informer
October 1994