Admiralty

[aksis]

I was over at ecclesia.org a day or 2 ago, reading some posts that David Merril had created, (david, some of your older posts cleared up many of the terms that you use like "capitial intregration", etc. :-), and one post covered some subject matter regarding the Libel in Review countreclaim in Admiralty, and it got me to thinking about this venue of the courts.

It was mentioned that the Constitution is an Admiralty do***ent (a treaty between 50 sovereign Nations), and I pressume any International interactions are Admiralty in nature.

It was also mentioned somewhere that this venue is lacking clairity even on the part of many judges.

I have a few questions about this venue.

I was having a hard time finding the Federal Rules of Admiralty Procedure (is that the name?), anyone have a link? I saw many referances to Rule E(8) and I don't have the Rules.

Would this be the venue that any suit aginst any Government[s] (not nececarialy D.C. (U.S.) or the uSA), it's Officer, an Official Department or agent thereof, Police Officers, Municipal Corporations, Judges, Magistraits, etc. would be brought in?

Is this the venue that a military court marshal happens in?

Would this be the venue that, say for example, France would bring a suit aginst the United States in? (a better example would probably be a non-party to the UN's International Court of Justice Statute of the Court)

[dawgwise]

Rule E 8
Restricted Appearance. An appearance to defened against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment whether pursuant to these Suppliemental Rules or to Rule 4 e, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event shall not constitute an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/do...058/index.html

[Codee]

Admiralty proceeding is an Article three court action. Thus if there is no statute you cannot do anything because there are no formal article three courts.

You can get some statutory jurisdiction in a public rights forum under the assumption your claim is a division of the states right to sue. All crap but this is how they have no courts.

David gets a "Non-bonded" to pretend like a magistrate to inturn pretend he is a juudge.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by aksis

I have a few questions about this venue.

I was having a hard time finding the Federal Rules of Admiralty Procedure (is that the name?), anyone have a link? I saw many referances to Rule E(8) and I don't have the Rules.

attached...

Would this be the venue that any suit aginst any Government[s] (not nececarialy D.C. (U.S.) or the uSA), it's Officer, an Official Department or agent thereof, Police Officers, Municipal Corporations, Judges, Magistraits, etc. would be brought in?

The key to using that venue is diversity. Any citizen of the US is a government employee.

Is this the venue that a military court marshal happens in?

Yes. But more specifically the Executive Branch - the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy exclusively operates in admiralty. A great example about that was the series JAG. The flag of the US is under province of the President - Title 4 - The Flag is simply an Executive Order from Dwight Eisenhower. Because of this, it is difficult to convince skeptics that the gold fringe is admiralty.

Would this be the venue that, say for example, France would bring a suit aginst the United States in? (a better example would probably be a non-party to the UN's International Court of Justice Statute of the Court)

Pretty close. Member nations of the UN are obligated by treaty to appear however the only true Article III court is in the province of the Patroons - the Court of International Trade on Manhattan Island.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf
American’s Bulletin 1995 METRO 1313 article

Codee made a strange comment about what I do:

David gets a "Non-bonded" to pretend like a magistrate to intern pretend he is a juudge.

It is en***bent on anyone in the absence of judiciary to become judiciary. The Libel of Review is bonded in true judgment.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif

Codee's lack of confidence in the Bill of Exchange is inconsequential to the many suitors and even medical doctors currently using it. You may order up certified copies by the Reception #201099293 on its face at (719) 520-6200. The Reception # of the Proof of Service is 201101604.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/onscreen.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

Codee, your absolutly sure there are no Article III courts at all? Even on the part of earth called D.C.? I am looking into this deeper and I think you are wrong in this after reading the article that Big Al posted by Ed, the "honest attorney" that was "disbarred".

Pretty close. Member nations of the UN are obligated by treaty to appear however the only true Article III court is in the province of the Patroons - the Court of International Trade on Manhattan Island.

David, I assume that I will find evidance of this in Title 28, Chapter 5? Will it be in the foot notes? If not, got a link to the Statutes At Large where it was ordained and established?

Would this be the proper forum for a suit (in Law, Equity or Admiralty/Maritime) that a "non-member" state of the UN would bring aginst any party to the several States, (including one of We the People), in the event of a tort or dispute?

Anyways, back to more general Admiralty questions.

I am assuming that even State Officers/employees, (ie Govener, Sec. of State, Sheriff, Police Office), while on duty are moving in Admiralty.

I am not seeing it as being specific to "federal Officers/employees" but anyone who is holding any kind of Office, and while on duty, should they break any of the "ships" codes, rules or regulations, they would need to be brought before the proper forum and disiplined. Like the People via the President are the Sup. Chief for the Federal public body, the People via the Govener are the Master of the particular republic's public body... yet they are all run like a "ship" & "crew".

__________________________________
Sidebar[s]:

David,

Thanks, I think I will be ordering that, and a cert. copy of the Credit River Decision & de jure 13th.

It is en***bent on anyone in the absence of judiciary to become judiciary. The Libel of Review is bonded in true judgment.

As the source of powers & duties delegated to government servents, it is not only within our rights & powers, it is a duty via neccesity to protect & serve one another. Service is love made manifest. Love God & one another... the simplicity of any religious doctrin.

Though I am still learning how to make use of all these tools, and I distinctly remember you saying that "confidance" is "competence", I am starting to develop more confidence in my ability to function as a court of competent jurisdiction.

The "how" of many things is still being learned...

Newnote:

Your quote/sumation of Carrol Quigley on the bill of exchange from the ecclesia.org forums shead a whole new light on the Bill of Exchange (BOE) for me. After reading it, the concept of what that instrument is, took on a whole new light:

Carrol Quigley explains the history of bills of exchange in Tragedy and Hope; A History of the World in Our Time.

Getting from say, Turkey to Cyprus was a fairly risky task. Ships sunk and pirates plundered etc.

So break down international trade into four components. The seller's product. The seller's gold coin. The buyer's product. The buyer's gold coin.

Now eliminate the need to figure 'buyer' and 'seller'. Nation 1 and Nation 2.

If Nation 1 has a ship full of goods and gets it to Nation 2, does it make sense to sail the ship back to Nation 1 empty except for the gold coin tendered by Nation 2? No.

So leave the gold coin there on credit in a bank and instead, carry Nation 2's goods back to Nation 1 in the hull.

In turn, do not carry Nation 2's gold coin back to them, risking that it will be lost or stolen in route.

Thus developed bills of exchange (on the foreign exchange market).

I also liked the tidbit of information about the gold depositories, how paletts of gold are set on colored tiles that represent the various nations. As the credit on the "books" shifts, the pallets of gold are moved from one color tile to another.

So, via a Waivor of Tort (what was the tort that was waived?) the Bill of Exchange you linked to cured?

Not sure if this belongs in the 'sidebar', is this BOE an Admerilty issue? seems like it is... but I am not clear on it yet.

[Codee]

There are two article three courts "set up" with legislation. This allows for legislation to mention "District court*s*" See if there was only one or none then the legislature could not use the term rightfully.

However these courts are set up to be article three but do not have judges capable of wielding the Judicial Power of the United States. The US supreme court is also an article three court. However unless the judges are bonded as judicial officers then they are not capabale of wielding Judicial power unless by aquiesence of the parties by failing to object. If there is no objection then even a pretend defato Judge gets REAL judicial power and is not accountable so he can just throw it in the corner an proceed administratively on your sorry butt. However the supreme court is not a "District court" so it does not count toward the pluralization of "District courts."

That is why David makes a good point in saying that if there are no Judges someone needs to be the judiciary. It is you,,, at home, with a default answer not in your mailbox. Since your mailbax (clerk) did not have on file an answer, you (The judge per saving to suitors) issue an oreder for the clerk "Your mailbox) to send out the judgment (Notice of default) and have it served (By court service agents called postmen) with an appeal oppertunity (Notice to cure) and then when the default ruling cannot be appealed due to time bar, then the Judgment can be entered into record. IF the sheriff won't enforce then start your administrative actions and get into an administrative court.

The Judicial power of the United states is given to "CASES!!!" not to courts alone. So in your case if there is no judge competent to recieve the grant of judicial power then you must empannel a jury OR rely on the other side not making a stink about a non-bonded trying the case,,, or use the saving to suitors clause and try the case yourself.

I would hit them with a saving to suitors (What was saved? the right to remedy, even non-court remedies) then use the court adjuncts to enforce the administrative ruling you just made. Now all the court can look at is the default record. Takeing the remedy out of the courts and obtaining defaults is acting as a court of competent Juridiction. As soon as you "decide" that there is a default you have acted in your sovereign capacity and as a court of competent jurisdicition. Now the matter is getting someone to enforce your "adminitrative decision." You take your "decicsion" and get it reviewed by an adjunct and that cout looks at the record of your "Admiinstrative determination" for errors in law, mistakes, or lack of jurisdicition. If the adjunct court looks aat your case and all is in order then it can issue a governmental order to enforce.

1) A court created by legislature's words alone does not have to exist.

2) In order for the court to be "operational" there must be a "Judge" competent and Bonded.

3) If there is no Judge then a jury or other must be recieve the grant of Judicial power or there is no "Court" because there is no "Judging" with powers of "Judgment."

4) If the court is not opperational you may as well call it "not there."

I am not sure where my absence of faith in BOE comes in. I do not put "faith" into such things, true, but I do think that there is merrit to the argument. So do not put me as a Shoonra or JRB on the issue of BOE's. Please.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by aksis

Codee, your absolutly sure there are no Article III courts at all? Even on the part of earth called D.C.? I am looking into this deeper and I think you are wrong in this after reading the article that Big Al posted by Ed, the "honest attorney" that was "disbarred".



David, I assume that I will find evidance of this in Title 28, Chapter 5? Will it be in the foot notes? If not, got a link to the Statutes At Large where it was ordained and established?

Would this be the proper forum for a suit (in Law, Equity or Admiralty/Maritime) that a "non-member" state of the UN would bring aginst any party to the several States, (including one of We the People), [color=blue][color=Black]in the event of a tort or dispute?

Oh yeah. The evidence is there but like Ed was saying there is evidence Washington DC and Hawaii are Article III. However there is a stipulation that the state had to get rid of the magistrates and replace them with judges and I doubt that ever happened.

I may look through stacks and directories. I know I have the evidence from Title 28 here somewhere... What we did at the CIT in Manhattan was attempt filing two cases twice and they were answered with a bogus clerk adjudication saying he had presented the case to the chief judge and she said the CIT had no jurisdiction. That is why we presented it twice with the filing rules and saying "Fine, we want the chief judge to say that for $350/pop; not a clerk saying the chief judge said so hearsay." They will not adjucate the matter of jurisdiction even... we cannot get the adjudication from a judge there; only a clerk who is not competent to judge. So I suspect the CIT is truly Article III and they understand the can of worms recognizing the distinction between men and corporate persons will open.


So, via a Waivor of Tort (what was the tort that was waived?) the Bill of Exchange you linked to cured?

Mainly false branding of me to be a corporate person/artificial entity pro se over the years. But the timing would have primarily that the State owned a motorcycle pretending that it was mine.

Not sure if this belongs in the 'sidebar', is this BOE an Admerilty issue? seems like it is... but I am not clear on it yet.


It is international.

It covers all debt currencies generated by the Bretton Woods UN agreements. - all the money in the world in the same philosophy of SDRs (Special Drawing Rights/paper gold).

It piggybacks that system for value. As the Club of Paris forgives debt for instance I am going broke. But then I boast of owning all the debt in the world as well as all the money in the world because the money is debt-based. So I don't mind getting out of all that some $3.6q of debt.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Codee]

...we become competent to judge when the clerk recuses the court by acting like Article III for a magistrate. Each suitor asks at judge assignment, "Is this an Article III judge?"

Until recently the clerk would say "Yes" a recusal.

So you do get the court to pretend. Then you recuse the court for fraud. Then you accept the grant of Judicial power yourself. Is this the "David Merrill" process?Just kiddin'

So I see it as maybe done like this too. If the clerk says yes it is an article three court, maybe it is? Mabey the judicial power extends to the case NOT because it is an inferior court created by artcle three powers in the legislature, BUT INSTEAD Judicial power of the U.S. is extended to the case by virtue of the CASE and not the tribunal at all. U.S. courts can only hear items of law under article three. They cannot hear administratively, that is beond there jurisdiction, that belongs to the administration.
What if the tribunal was granted Judicial Power from your case as a suitor. I know that tribunals can issue common law remedies if the statute allows, see saving to suitors. So what if the "tribunal" not the magistrate, was given article three Judicial powers, but there was no competent Judge to recieve it. All the judges would be recused and the Judicial power to decide the case would reside in you. However when all the power to act on an action resides in one person then it is administrative, your administrative/common law remedy, because administrative remedies need no court. Now there is a claim in the court docket which you have ruled on administratively and now the administrative judge could review the case and look at the record of the administrative ruling/Default,R4C and You could pronounce judgments and file them. The opposing party could ask for review in administrative courts.

If you can posses Judicial POwer why not administrative power too...?

That is how I kinda look at it. I am using the administrative courts to enforce my law remedies

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Codee

If you can posses Judicial POwer why not administrative power too...?

What powers does the sovereign lack?

This was why I was looking at Admiralty.

My pespective on sovereignty is not some quasi-sovereign stance (even State citizenship apppears like this to me), but more a true sovereign presence.

In simplicity, I see 6 billion+ autonomous sovereign states on earth (the people). Granted, many are united under the banner of a particular nations, yet preceeding the allegiance, they were autonomous. It is the true state of a human being.

I am looking for viable solutions on how to co-exist with the people of earth, and the question of, "where could someone bring a suit aginst me, or where could I bring a suit aginst someone?", came to mind.

Admiralty seems to be the proper venue if the opposing party was a US. citizen/person, or one of the People of the serveral united states of America.

Such a suit would be brought in the supreme Court, correct? That is how I interperated:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

[rottweiler]

The libel is the first proceeding in a suit in admiralty in the courts of the United States.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition
Libel-to seize under admiralty process. (Also to defame or injure a person's reputation by a published writing.)

Review-A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision; consideration for purposes of correction. Used especially in the examination of a cause by a appellate court.

Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary
LIBELLANT. The party who fires a libel in a chancery or admiralty case, correspondes to the plaintiff in actions in the common law courts, is called the libellant.

LIBELLEE. A party against whom a libel has been filed in chancery proceedings, or in admiralty, corresponding to the defendant in a common law suit.

Women(a man's shadow according to the Scripture) and active bar members(call your state bar to check on the judge) are not Art. III to the best of my knowledge. Neither are the Supremes. The United States District courts wear two hats, USDC and district courts for the United States(Art. III). The filing fee is way lower also($59?). The only use I see for a Libel of Review is to reverse a IRS libel or seizure. Tax Protestors take on the burden of prove when they move outside(tax court, USDC) of admiralty and almost never prevail. Since the IRS never gets a court order the Libel of Review should be a slam dunk.
I have never used this personally but it is great in theory and if someone has tried to file in the Article III Court I would love to hear about it.