Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
The reference to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 9(h) relates to maritime actions. From looking at a map, my guess is that not many Montana judges get much experience in maritime cases.
Not just because Montana is landlocked but - everywhere in the US - federal, not state, courts have maritime jurisdiction, acc to the US Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, clause 1.
|
The broad language of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes
whether or not they are Federal or States crimes “commercial crimes.” In the Propeller Genessee Chief,
supra, it was revealed that admiralty courts have jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it would follow
that the crimes listed in 27 CFR 72.11 are cognizable in an admiralty or maritime court, and such are
commercial courts. The relevant part of the text is as follows:
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses
against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery;
illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion;
swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of
marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.
This power [of admiralty jurisdiction] 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." Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v.
Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
For further information see the attachment -->