Admiralty - Delovio v. Boit

[David Merrill]

I made a comment on another thread recently and then remembered the frustration of trying to find Delovio v. Boit on the Internet. After about the first paragraph, where Justice Story (then Circuit court in Massechusetts) makes not apologies for how long the opinion must be because he has to explain the history of the admiralty in order for the reader to understand his conclusions, the Internet versions then skip Story's explanation; skipping about thirty pages of text.

But if you have a Weslaw subscription you can find the entire text. I was beginning to think my memory was playing tricks on me. I remembered items about the Laws of Oleron and the Holy Land Crusades, that King Richard LIONHEART, the Crusaders' Crusader returned from Jerusalem only to institute admiralty as the basis for the common law of England to justify the theft of all the Treasures of Jerusalem.

Some more is explained in this quoted post:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

King George was only figurehead:



The monarchy of England was short-circuited by the Crown Templars, the land barons of England in 1215. The rich Templars, just returned from the Crusades for the promised land grants and wealthy with plunder from the Temple and the Holy Land held the king at the point of a sword and made him sign the Magna Charta.

Therefore the bigger picture is that the Declaration of Independence is not quiet title (that King George let not lie) but rather an internal memorandum of the Crown Templars. A restructuring of the Colonies into the united States.

I was discussing this today and it also hit me that Christianity, at least in the definition of America being a Christian nation, is formed and funded in the original by plundering Jerusalem!


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Several signers of the Declaration of Independence were Crown-trained attorneys. See the attachment. Today the International Bar Association is a few hundred meters to the northwest of the Templar portion of the Sovereign and Independent City of London (which recently crowned Alan Greenspan a Knight; [was he an Esquire (squire) before that?]) but no doubt that is just to get into a modern office building. I have heard reports that the original office for the IBA is on Chancery Lane; ergo the street name.

I will put a few pages here and see about getting the entire case loaded onto suijuris for people to download and read.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[its2die4]

Hello David,

I know this thread is very old but I'm hoping that you'll see my post.... Were you ever successful in posting the Delovio v. Boit case onto the Sui Juris site for us to view? Because, I have been hunting for it and since I don't have West Law I'm at the mercy of another that does. Please let me know because I'd love to read what the Justice had to say - all 30 pages!

Thanks Much... Trying to connect the dots...
Keith

[David Merrill]

I do not recall ever getting the entire 30 pages uploaded. Sorry.

The case would have gone out with old papers - to the dump - today. Sorry again.

[rottweiler]

The Church
At the time of John’s reign there was still a great deal of controversy as to how the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be elected, although it had become traditional that the monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury.

But in the early 13th century, the bishops began to want a say. To retain control, the monks elected one of their number to the role. But John, incensed at his lack of involvement in the proceedings, sent the Bishop of Norwich to Rome as his choice. Pope Innocent III declared both choices as invalid and persuaded the monks to elect Stephen Langton, who in fact was probably the best choice. But John refused to accept this choice and exiled the monks from the realm. Infuriated, Innocent ordered an interdict (prevention of public worship) in England in 1208, excommunicated John in 1209, and backed Philip to invade England in 1212.

John finally backed down and agreed to endorse Langton and allow the exiles to return, and to completely placate the pope he gave England and Ireland as papal territories and rented them back as a fiefdom for 1,000 marks per annum. This further enraged the barons as it meant that they had even less autonomy in their own lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_C...of_Magna_Carta

[rottweiler]

Taxes
Despite all of this, England's government could function without a strong king. The efficient civil service, established by the powerful King Henry II had run England throughout the reign of Richard I. But the government needed money, for during this period of prosperity mercenary soldiers cost nearly twice as much as before. The loss of the French territories, especially Normandy, greatly reduced the state income and a huge tax would have to be raised in order to attempt to reclaim these territories. Yet it was difficult to raise taxes due to the tradition of keeping them at the same level.

Novel forms of income included a Forest law, a set of regulations about the king’s forest which were easily broken and severely punished. John also increased the pre-existing scutage (feudal payment to an overlord replacing direct military service) eleven times in his seventeen years as king, as compared to eleven times in twice that period covering three monarchs before him. The last two of these increases were double the increase of their predecessors. He also imposed the first income tax which rose, what was at the time, the extortionate sum of £60,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_C...of_Magna_Carta

[rottweiler]

Rebellion and Civil War

By 1215, some of the barons of England banded together and took London by force on June 10, 1215. They and many of the fence-sitting moderates not in overt rebellion forced King John to agree to a document called the "Articles of the Barons", to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.

The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and over-rule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, which was commonly done, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

King John had no intention to honour Magna Carta, as it was sealed under extortion by force, and clause 61 essentially neutered his power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the First Barons' War. Pope Innocent III also immediately annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear." He rejected any call for rights, saying it impaired King John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the king and released John from his oath to obey it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_C...of_Magna_Carta

[rottweiler]

Magna Carta, which had originally only restrained the actions of the king in dealing with his noble vassals, was broadly interpreted to protect all citizens against royal usurpation.

As the principles of Magna Carta settled into the bedrock of English legal history, the forerunner of the English Parliament came into being. It began as a meeting of the primary "estates" in English society (the clergy, nobility, and wealthy commoners) to confer with the king, particularly when he wished to raise taxes from them. The term "parliament" was attached to these meetings of the estates, meaning "discussions." Edward I summoned the first parliament (the so-called "Model Parliament") in 1295; this meeting established the precedent for subsequent parliaments of nobles and prelates to meet in the House of Lords and knights and eminent commoners in the House of Commons. As the Middle Ages waned into the early modern period, English kings recognized the growing power of parliament: Henry VII secured from parliament an act of succession to legitimate his claim to the throne, achieved by his victory on Bosworth Field in 1485; similarly, Henry VIII engineered his break with the Catholic Church through parliamentary statutes abrogating appeals to the papal court and instituting royal dominance of the Anglican church (1533 and 1534, respectively). Clearly, at the onset of the modern age, the notion of the king's accountability to longstanding tradition and precedent had converged with the Common Law to prepare the way for constitutional polity in England.
http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/crim...y/english.html

[Akira-]

DeLovio v. Boit

[David Merrill]

Thank you Akira. The exclusion I found annoying on most internet files is about the Knights Templar and their role in central banking and initiating admiralty to justify capture of the jettison (Treasure of Jerusalem).

There is strong probability of its existence in the reign of Richard the First, since the Laws of Oleron, which were compiled and promulgated by him on his return from the Holy Land, have always been deemed the laws of the admiralty, and could not have been fully enforced in any other court. Seld. de Dom. Maris, lib. 2, c. 24, p. 206; Seld. ad Fletam, c. 8, § 5; Godolph. 143-146; Roughton's Articles, art. 19, and notes C 16, and C 17 in Clerke, Prax. 121; Co. Litt. 11b., 260b.; 3 Reeve, Eng. Law, 198; Exton, 24, etc., 38. And the learned Selden has shown considerable evidence of its juridical authority in the reign of Henry the First. Seld. de Dom. Maris, lib. 2, c. 24, p. 209.

I have attached a photo of the Selden Society collection cited as found in the federal repository.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I was told by someone I was touring through the repository that in one major law library, they were denied access to look at this collection because they were not attorneys. That is a little difficult to believe but I tend to presume people are telling the truth until proven otherwise.

[mrg]

Again, perhaps an ignorant statement, but from what I have seen of it, DeLovio v. Boit is a "must read."

Also, that excellent photo of those library stacks reminds me of how much more valuable actual libraries and books are than internet info, not that I do not highly value what I can find on the internet, especially when it is a whole book, as it would be found in a library.

I have my own real "library" some of it very rare, that has been with me and growing for the past 35 years.

We have a particularly fine library in Chicago, the Newberry.

People come from all over the world to research there.

You go in and find what all you want, write down the info, and then one of the library staff will go get it for you and bring it right to you.