[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This was done to death on another thread about a month ago.

A special appearance means a (preliminary) dispute about jurisdiction. The only arguments allowed during that special appearance relate to jurisdiction and not to the merits of the case.

If the court holds that it has jurisdiction (which seems to happen about 90%), your presence in the case ceases to be "special" and the case goes forward on its merits. Usually an unsuccessful special appearance ends with the judge setting up a schedule for the trial on the issues of the case. In that situation, you will be required to defend your position on the merits of the case and if you don't then you risk losing by default.

The scope of Shoonra's assertions is War and Emergency Powers (1933). Therefore he is accurate within the actual theater of war and rules of courts martial apply. So that is where the notion a court-martial always has jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction comes from.

I first learned about restricted appearance while waiting in traffic court for a case to be called. It was early in the year, maybe 1994, and the officer had written the last year number on the ticket. The attorney (was so confident he would have the case dismissed the defendant stayed at work and) announced restriced appearance "Rule E(8)" and explained the officer's mistake. I was there with a crowd of Law Study Group fanfare and the judge knew it. So she came out and said the attorney would have to return for her decision at a later time. He was upset and so she explained that he would probably get his dismissal but she would not announce it in open court in front of certain people, nodding toward me. He turned around and took note.

When he was leaving he invited me into the hallway. We had a conversation during which I figured he was really curious about why I swayed the decision of the court and especially I found out he was only doing all that because he was annoyed he had to find a moment of open court time when I would not be there in the gallery to conclude his dismissal for his client.

Rule E(8) Restricted Appearance.

An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

The concept of appearing specially in ministerial capacity because you are a good and lawful man or even a Christian who abides by the Commands found in the Holy Bible is a myth. Recently I brought out the bowl-horizon scenario. Imagine Shoonra in a bowl looking around at the rim and he thinks that the rim is the true horizon when in fact the true horizon is further; where you would be administering your religious and spiritual faith concepts from. Some even believe outside the bowl is functional ecclesiastic law.

However that is not to discourage you from importing that law by law of the flag. It is the international nature of separate and distinct venues that creates diversity of citizenship. That must be utilized within the scope of admiralty like in Delovio v. Boit and within the penumbra of FRNs being marine insurance contracts. Often people mistakenly make themselves the vessels in rem*:

Courts of common law have a jurisdiction concurrent with the admiralty over contracts of marine insurance.

http://ecclesia.org/truth/irs.html

The successes are found in this diversity of citizenship and the timely Refusal for Cause of contract offers by men and women. It is only men and women who have God-given unalienable rights.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* For instance under arrest warrant of vessels:

Except as otherwise provided by law a party who may proceed in rem may also, or in the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.