International Law & Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction

[Freedomless]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes. This is from Catfreedom.com

INTERNATIONAL LAW

and ADMIRALTY MARITIME JURISDICTION

Press Here

In all of your States under the Criminal Codes, under Jurisdiction it states "This state includes the land and water within its boundaries and the air space above that land and water." In Ohio this is found under title 29 section 2901.11 (C) (1).



All of these state laws on territorial jurisdiction came from the CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL SEA and THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE, GENEVA, APRIL 29, 1958. This Convention has now largely been superseded by the Law of Sea Convention, although it remains in force for those States which are not party to that Convention. This comes under International Maritime Jurisdiction and the Law of the Sea Treaty called [LOST]. This treaty was passed December 10, 1982, this treaty put the sea under the jurisdiction of the United Nations like everything else.



The Treaty is composed of the following committees 1. International Seabed Authority [ISA]. 2. International Tribunal For The Law of The Sea.[ITLOS] 3. The Commission on The Limits Of The Continental Shelf [CLCS].



Since 1933 everything occurring in the courtroom is private not public, the judges and attorneys are signing orders and judgments. This is because there is no law or legitimate government Federal or State since 1861. The Major Law firms are running the courts, de facto government through ALAS [Attorneys Liability Assurance Society]. This Society has formed a Risk Retention or management Group under Title 15 sections 3901- 3906 in Bermuda. 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906

A Risk Retention Group Press Here under Title 15 Section 3901 subsection (4) (A)(B) (C) is any corporation or limited liability association, whose primary activity is to assume and spread all, or any portion, of the liability portion, of the liability exposure of its group members. This is all limited liability insurance or reinsurance under title 46 sections 181-189 of the shipping code or the Limited Liability Act of March 3, 1851. Their liability being limited to the Capital they have invested in their corporation, company or association. Under section 3904 (a) of title 15 ownership interests of members in a risk retention group shall be considered to be exempted for purposes of section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77e] and for the purposes of section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78] and considered to be securities for purposes of the provisions of section 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77q] and the provisions of section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78]. This Society is underwriting all of the Prison Bonds in conjunction with the Banks.

[theghost]

This is what Jean Keating is teaching. I am a student.

[fulltitle]

Since 1933 everything occurring in the courtroom is private not public....

I disagree. To my knowledge:

The private aspect in, say, a traffic ticket case may arise out of the fact that a the judge is getting his stocking stuffed with loot from that case. It may be that he has a private claim based on a public proceeding. That may be why a traffic court judge [like some doctors regarding their own patients] is interested in moving so fast from case to case--more $$$$. "The Court of Pie-Poudres is said by Lord Coke to have gained its name from its speedy justice, which was dispensed as fast as dust could fall from the foot."

Do their private claims overshadow the public proceeding, or do they merely shadow it? That fact that traffic court cases may be held to a criminal burden of proof even though they are quasi-criminal is a clear message that its a public trial and the judge would find himself limited as to how deep he can bury his face in the pie no matter how hungry he is and by public law or policy.

A judge's private claim [judge-strawman is owed by the municipality and the man is owed by judge-strawman] and a cop's private clam--where they both have a stake in the proceeds--are such that their private claims would arise out of 'public business' thereby potentially making the judge and the cop both public beneficiaries. Some may overlook the fact that those acting as state agents EVEN WHEN ENFORCING PRIVATE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS are more than likely subject to state regulations and *public* administrative jurisprudence as if they were so employed by the state. Their private claims are only sideshows to the public goings-on regardless of prospect that, in their eyes, the loot may be all that matters. Is it not true that said judge and cop can only eat fruit off the public-planted-case-tree as fast as the state allows?

"This state includes the land and water within its boundaries and the air space above that land and water."

That doesnt include the land and water not in its boundaries including foreign enclaves. Its might be like saying: "Bob has dominion over all the land and water within his boundaries and the air space above that land and water throughout North American landmass and that of Hawaii." For all you know thats a liquor store and a parking lot in the Bronx. Draw a "picture" of your state and poke lots of random holes in it. Call those holes either foreign enclaves or private land. And then consider again what is within its boundaries. Those enclaves are not within its boundaries even though they incidentally lay physically within the exterior geography of the similarly named region.

Imagine a king having a square piece of land 5000' x 5000' who restricts himself from ever going onto a piece of 20' x 20' land that is located within the exterior extremities of said 5000' x 5000' piece of land. Said king's boundaries are such that he is BOUND to not go into that 20' x 20' land. The *exterior boundaries* and the *interior boundaries* concerning that 20' x 20' parcel are still boundaries nonetheless with the interior boundaries being no less significant as those exterior. Because he is bound [agreement] to not go there [physical space]. Are they not outside of the king's limits? Is that 20' x 20' piece not an enclave? Would no the borders of that enclave be common to the interior boundaries concerning that king's land or dominion?

Does not the phrase "within its boundaries" excludes land outside its boundaries?

"ash-Shariqah

(Arabic“The Eastern”)

English Sharjah constituent emirate of the United Arab Emirates (formerly Trucial States, or Trucial Oman). Some of ash-Shariqah's interior boundaries are only presumptive, but its main portion is an irregularly shaped tract, oriented northwest–southeast, stretching about 60 miles (100 km) from the Persian Gulf (northwest) to the central inland region of the Oman promontory (southeast)...."

Perhaps see: interior, exterior, extremety, exclave, enclave, edge, city limits, limit, geographic region, geography, land, dominion, land, exterior boundary, promontory, interior boundary, border, boundary, metes, perimeter [see also metes], outskirts, bounds; metes (physicality?) and bounds (agreement/contractual limits?).

Perhaps also consider:

Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 176 Ark. 613, 4 S.W.2d 7 (1928), aff'd, 278 U.S. 439, 49 S.Ct. 227 (1929)

Lynch v. Hammock, 204 Ark. 911, 165 S.W.2d 369 (1942)

Thiele v. City of Chicago, 12 Ill.2d 218, 145 N.E.2d 637 (1957)

Miller v. Hickory Grove School Board, 162 Kan. 528, 178 P.2d 214 (1947)

Anderson v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 102 Neb. 578, 168 N.W. 196 (1918)

Tagge v. Gulzow, 132 Neb. 276, 271 N.W. 803 (1937)

Chaney v. Chaney, 53 N.M. 66, 201 P.2d 782 (1949)


Again, to my knowledge.

[chapka]

Possibly a stupid question, but...what on earth does admiralty jurisdiction have to do with anything else in the OP?

[David Merrill]

I recall being in the federal repository. I found myself there, drawn I guess. So I prayed to the God of monotheism; the One True God for guidance.

Then I walked to the State Department Bulletin and pulled a Volume at random and opened it to The Law of the Sea Treaty. I was overwhelmed emotionally by the timely Answer.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[truth4all]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 9

§ 9. Vessel of the United States defined


Release date: 2005-08-03

The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

[palani]

My take would be that the vessel belongs to a citizen of the united states, not that the citizen is the vessel. If I am a vessel I would have to be either documented through the coast guard or registered with the state. Next thing you know I would be hanging three black balls and calling myself not under command... :-)

Now if we are talking vassal that is something else.

[chapka]

Originally Posted by truth4all

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 9

§ 9. Vessel of the United States defined


Release date: 2005-08-03

The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

Even if we accepted your reading of the statute, though, as opposed to the more reasonable reading pointed out by palani, you'd still only be a "vessel of the United States" for the purposes of Title 18, as explicitly stated in the passed you quoted above, which means it's not really relevant to anything unless you're taking part in one of the activities discussed in Title 18 with respect to a "vessel of the United States"--for example, shanghaiing sailors on board yourself or beating or wounding the crew of yourself. Or, of course, firing or tampering with yourself.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Originally Posted by palani

My take would be that the vessel belongs to a citizen of the united states, not that the citizen is the vessel.

How naval is your navel?



A vessel isnt a boat. A vehicle isnt an automobile. They are the papers surrounding the physical things. A motorized conveyance is still a word of art its still referring to motorized paper dolls (i.e. mechanized chattel..paper).

Originally Posted by palani

If I am a vessel I would have to be either documented through the coast guard or registered with the state.

Take a look at "your" berth certificate. What was on the manifest when the ship berthed? Is a umbilical cord a type of 'mooring'..or was it?



Perhaps you were once moored to the mother ship and then detached (umbilical cord cut)...



...then perhaps even taken under command/wardship by a port authority and then "attached"/moored to port in municipal harbors by other means and then certified as being moored therein by a port authority ['berthing ward/yard' warden]? Was there any livestock on ship's manifest?

Perhaps?

Just how naval is your navel?

[palani]

Here is another definition - The word "vessel" includes every description of watercraft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft [Intl], and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. From http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule03.htm

I will not contemplate otherwise. English is still my language of choice. Anyone who might presume otherwise may feel free to browse the following site in search of further illumination http://dwmlc.com/

If you believe that a peice of paper, a definition that you don't agree with or private law that you are not party to is capable of ruling your life then it probably will.