Out of Admiralty

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
The Constitution says, Art. III, sec. 2, clause 1, says that the federal courts have jurisdiction of admiralty cases.

Could you provide a quote from the source you have sited?

If something does not actually "say" precisely what YOU say it "says" does it really "say" what YOU say it "says?"

My copy of "...this Constitution for the United States of America" seems to be missing the term "federal," altogether, and the term "jurisdiction" seems to be missing from Article III, section 2, clause 1.

You would not attribute terms to a document, and or passages cited therefrom, that are not actually there would you?

[Shoonra]

US Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 2, clause 1:

The judicial power {of the United States} shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, .... to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, .....

I wonder why you couldn't find it, and I wonder why you spelled cited with an s.

[rottweiler]

Article III
Sec. 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

The Supreme court doesn't have any judges, they have justices and I don't see anything about a Chief Justice nor can I understand how their compensation can be diminished by income tax. I think we got a wolf in the sheep fold.

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I wonder why you couldn't find it, and I wonder why you spelled cited with an s.

Perhaps semi-literate, self-aggrandizing pomposity has something to do with it?

[rottweiler]

"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE GREAT SEAL
"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
[Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)

[rottweiler]

How can people be sovereign but the IRS is sovereign over them? IMPOSSIBLE! If people using social security numbers are getting their cases thrown out because the IRS has sovereign immunity over them that tells me those people are considered resident aliens and are not sovereign at all. That means the IRS and Shoonra's line of mularkey is also foreign.

http://www.usavsus.info/IRSnotAgencyOfUS.htm

Ding-dong the witch is dead
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She's gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The Supreme court doesn't have any judges, they have justices and I don't see anything about a Chief Justice nor can I understand how their compensation can be diminished by income tax. I think we got a wolf in the sheep fold.

THe Supreme Court is provided for by Art.3, sec. 2, clause 1, and the nomenclature used for its members goes back to the first Congress, notwitnstanding that Supreme Court appointees require nomination and confirmation like any other federal judges.

The issue of "diminished compensation" of judges was much litigated when the income tax was introduced and again when Social Security commenced. Initially it was held that each federal judge could be taxed only by those taxes - and tax rates - in effect on the day he took office. Considerably later this was modified to say that judges could be required to pay whatever taxes and tax rates were then and now applicable to the general public, but not required to pay any new and discriminatory tax - such as a special tax on lawyers or on regulated professions.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Considerably later this was modified to say that judges could be required to pay whatever taxes and tax rates were then and now applicable to the general public, but not required to pay any new and discriminatory tax - such as a special tax on lawyers or on regulated professions.

"Regulated professions"..

You gotta love it..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The DeLovio case, which DiM depends on, actually dealt with a ship's cargo and the insurance on it, and the ship was lost at sea. So a comment that insurance is necessarily an admiralty case doesn't tell us anything about non-water-borne situations. It's too easy to suspect that the one sentence that DiM hammers at was carelessly phrased, especially since the decision is so old.

DeLovio has seldom been quoted in court decisions in the past century, and the sentence that DiM hammers on has not been quoted at all.

Most significantly, you won't find a court decision anywhere, even back when DeLovio was decided, that says or even hints that a decidedly non-maritime insurance situation -- such as hospitalization, home owners, auto, etc. -- winds up in admiralty court.

That pretty much speaks for itself. Delovio is simply a typical example of revenue and insurance being admiralty causes. One can find many successes aside from Ronald Dean's replevin posted already.

Let's get Shoonra's take on James Harlan: (attached)



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Rottweiler;

Thanks for that Justice of the Peace paper you linked. I have an old treatise on Justice of the Peace around here somewhere but it is too big - maybe in Uploads if I can figure that out.

[rottweiler]

I don't see any justices in Article III. That is amending of the constitution without following the procedure laid out in Article V. I think there are some big old stinking rats telling big fat lies.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

THe Supreme Court is provided for by Art.3, sec. 2, clause 1, and the nomenclature used for its members goes back to the first Congress, notwitnstanding that Supreme Court appointees require nomination and confirmation like any other federal judges.

The issue of "diminished compensation" of judges was much litigated when the income tax was introduced and again when Social Security commenced. Initially it was held that each federal judge could be taxed only by those taxes - and tax rates - in effect on the day he took office. Considerably later this was modified to say that judges could be required to pay whatever taxes and tax rates were then and now applicable to the general public, but not required to pay any new and discriminatory tax - such as a special tax on lawyers or on regulated professions.