Re: Admiralty jurisdiction


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lee on January 20, 1998 at 03:55:06:

In Reply to: Re: Admiralty jurisdiction posted by Matthew G. Ball on November 26, 1997 at 19:30:45:

: For all of you out there who believe in the American Flag of Peace,
: I feel it is my duty to tell you that you are being sold a bill of goods.
: The so-called American Flag of Peace Theory is completely false.
: Every federal court throughout the country that has been
: presented with arguments based on the flag-theory
: has rejected them, and with good reason.
: The court's jurisdiction over you has nothing to do
: with the flag that stands in the courtroom.
: It has everything to do with the constitution,
: statutes, and the common law of the United States
: -- i.e., the laws as interpreted by judges, not flag
: theorists. In other words, those of you who come
: into the federal courts with the idea that the
: flag theory will somehow get you relief are sadly
: mistaken. Some litigants who have continued to
: make arguments before the courts based on the flag
: theory have even been fined. I am a law clerk to a
: federal judge, and can attest to how we view the flag
: theory. For more information, and a concise analysis
: of the flag-theory issues, please do yourselves
: a favor and go to the county law library where
: you live and read this opinion -- McCann v. Greenway,
: 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997). If you don't know
: how to find this particular opinion, the reference
: staff will usually be happy to help you, provided
: that you are polite to them. The McCann opinion
: pretty much describes how every federal court
: in the nation feels about flag theories.

: In short, a federal district court is not a foreign
: country, and it does have jurisdiction over you. It is not
: an admiralty court, nor a military court. It has
: the authority to decide any dispute that meets
: the jurisdictional requirements -- i.e., your lawsuit
: either has to be based on a federal statute that
: provides an express right of action, or based on
: state law with a claim for more than $75,000.

: You may not like to hear this. Well, our political
: system has a means for expressing dissent. You
: can vote, form your own political parties, and work
: for change. Asserting that the laws of the United
: States don't apply to you based on some poorly
: reasoned fringe theory is childish. It will get you
: nowhere.

: I hope this is of some assistance to somebody.

Matthew:

Thank you for the info. Anything that can give me
different views of the situation in our country
is greatly appreciated.

The tone of your response, however, is not much
unlike that which you attributed to the "Flag
Theorists" above.

It does no one any good to continue to play the
"hot potato" game the one's anger and frustration.

If you are truly interested in the "truth",
emotions must be put aside, and the "facts" must
be delt with on their own merit.

Everyone has some truth in what they say. The
problem occurs when we take our own "truths"
(knowledge gained from our own experiences) and
then add assumptions to create a more expanded
"TRUTH".

You have your own truth, the facts of which only
you know. Does this mean that there are others
that are experiencing different "truths", even
ones contrary to yours?

For example, are you sure that the judges ruling
is valid? Judges opinions can fluctuate like the
"flag" blowing in the wind - see www.anti-irs.com
for Bill Conklin's experiences with judges who
could not rule consistently on the validity of
using the Fifth Amen. when it comes to filing
income taxes. It becomes pretty clear when reading
such info as this and hearing about the
experiences of Howard Freeman, as mentioned by
LeAnne Tillar in the above response, that judges
sometimes do have alternative motives to rule
contrary to the law (more on this below).

Are you positive that the defendants of such "flag"
cases do not have any "truth" behind their
arguments? Have you researched the sources of
their information? What if you found that the
law did indeed support their views, and the judge,
for whatever reason (and there is a good one,
some people claim),simply ignored or denied such
law, where is the "truth" now, in the statutes or
with the judge?

Are you sure that the defendant didn't lose his
case because of violating legal procedure?

Howard Freeman tells of a conversation he had with
a judge friend of his about an IRS case where a
man lost because he did not follow legal procedure.
The judge admitted that the defendant had all the
"facts" (ones you've probably heard about, but
might have discredited because you have knowledge
of people losing cases based on such arguments)he
needed to win his "wilful failure to file" case.
His downfall was that this man was filled with so
much anger towards the court's "deception"
regarding the "true" situation of our legal
system, that all he did was spew a combination of
knowledge and frustration. When the man would
pause after he finished with his train of thought,
the judge would calmly ask if he was ready to
start the case after each time he paused. Out of
six pages of spewing, only one paragraph was
allowed to be reviewed by an appelate (sp?) court,
the judges verdict. What the defendant didn't
know, Howard's judge friend explains, is that
higher courts can ONLY appeal LEGAL DETERMINATIONS
by the judge, NOT statements by the defendant.
What the defendant had to do, and this was Howard
Freeman's approach, which was so successful with
triffic tickets and the IRS, was to ask questions
of the judge to get the judge to answer, on the
record, and therefore make legal determinations
every time he spoke. The defendant had all the
truth he needed to win, but the courtroom
procedure he chose to take caused him to lose the
case.

In regards to jurisdiction, I believe you are
correct, to an extent. I am currently verifying
a few things in this respect. In fact, one reason
why I am writing you is to see, with your career
background being able to provide you with valuable
info, if you could help me verify some info about
jurisdictions that I have learned primarily from
Howard Freeman's tapes.

As far as I know, the Constitution does list 3
jurisdictions the courts have when ruling for the
50 states - Common Law, Equity & Admiralty (Art.
III, Section 2, Clause 2)- under a Republican form
of gov't (Art. IV, Section 4), and exclusive
jurisdiction (Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17) under
a legislative Democracy when ruling for D.C.,
territories and enclaves, i.e., anything Congress
creates.

Now, and this is what I would like to get
verified:

When someone is COMPELLED to PERFORM,
such as buckling their seat belt, or filing
an income tax return, then that person is not
under Common Law jurisdiction, the premise upon
which it is based, as well as the Constitution
itself, being that anyone can do anything they
chose as long as they do not infringe upon someone
else's life, liberty, and property.

You CANNOT be COMPELLED TO PERFORM under Common
Law. And if you do violate the Common Law, that
is a CRIMINAL act which is punishable.

You CAN be COMPELLED TO PERFORM under an Equity
jurisdiction to the exact letter of a CONTRACT
that you are under. If someone is COMPELLING
you to PERFORM some act, there must be a contract
in existence which you agreed to. This is CIVIL,
NOT CRIMINAL, action. If, however, you refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be
charged with contempt of court, which is a
CRIMINAL action. If you have a contract under
Common Law which you know you cannot keep, Equity
courts allow you to work out a "deal" with the one
you are contracted with. The is NO PENALTY for not
keeping to the letter of the contract. You have a
chance to work things out.

The seat belt laws are NOT Equity laws because you
cannot be automatically PENALIZED for violating
a contract which COMPELS PERFORMANCE. In addition,
violating traffic laws is a CRIMINAL action, NOT
CIVIL.

The Admiralty jurisdiction is a CIVIL jurisdiction
of COMPELLED PERFORMANCE which also has CRIMINAL
PENALTIES for not adhering to the letter of the
contract, but it only applies to INTERNATIONAL
CONTRACTS.

This is where all traffic laws, building codes,
ordinances, tax codes, etc., lie. Whenever there
is a penalty for failure to perform, such as
willful FAILURE TO FILE, this is Admiralty/
Maritime law and there must be a valid
international contract in force.

(In reality, it's not a Admiralty/Maritime law
jurisdiction, it's a COLORABLE Admiralty/Maritime law
jurisdiction. It's COLORABLE due to the fact that
for it to be TRUE Admiralty/Maritime law, the
international contracts must be based on
substance, i.e., gold and silver, when in fact
they are based on Federal Reserve Notes, which
have no substantive value [money created out of
thin air], but the law "appears" to be legimate,
thus the term "COLORABLE".)

The courts don't want to admit this (because they
have then admitted to the bankruptcy of the
country), so they created the STATUATORY
JURISDICTION.

We have gotten into this situation where you can
be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be
fined for it because Art. I, Section 10, gives us
the UNLIMITED RIGHT to CONTRACT, as long as we do
not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of
someone else. And contracts can be ENFORCED in
Euity and Admiralty jurisdictions, but we find
them being enforced in STATUATORY jurisdiction.

With all this said, how could you verify this if
you chose to do so. Very easily.

Explain this situation to a judge friend, and see
if he can answer he defendant's dilemma:

Someone goes to court, and when asked
by the judge how they would like to plea, he
says he cannot plea because he does not
understand the charges brought against him and
states that under the 6th Amen. the Constitution
gives him the right to know the nature of the
charge and the judge has the duty to respond.

The judge allows him to ask some questions about
the nature of the charge.

The defendant asks "Is this a criminal or civil
charge?"

The judge says "Criminal" (for any of the
violations mentioned above - traffic tickets, IRS,
etc.)

The defendant says "There only 2 criminal
jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution -
one under COMMON LAW, and the other deals
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACTS under an
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. EQUITY is Civil.
Since you said this is a Criminal action,
it seems it would have to under either Common
Law or Maritime Law. But was puzzles me is that
there is no CORPUS DELICTI (a damaged/complaining
party) that gives this court JURISDICTION over my
person and property under the Common Law.
Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this
court is moving under the Common Law.

The judge answers, "No, I can assure you this
court is NOT moving under the Common Law.

The defendant then says, "Thank you, You Honor,
but now you make the charge against me even more
difficult to understand. The only other criminal
jurisdiction would apply only if there was an
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACT involved, I was a
PARTY to it, it had been breached, and the court
was operating in an ADMIRATLY jurisdiction. I
don't believe I have ever been under any
International Maritime contract, so I would deny
that one exists. I would have to demand that such
a contract, if it does exist, be placed into
evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely,
this court is NOT operating under an Admiratlty
Jurisdiction?

The judge answers, "No, I can assure you, we're
not operating under an Admiralty jurisdiction.
We're not out in the ocean somewhere, where right
here in the middle of the State of _____. No, this
is NOT an Admiralty jurisdiction.

The defendant proceeds, "Thank you, Your Honor,
but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this
charge is not under the Common Law, or under
Admiralty, and those are the only 2 criminal
jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution, what
kind of jurisdiction could this court be
operating under?

Judge says, "Statutory jurisdiction."

Defendant says, "But I have never heard of that
jurisdiction. If I have to defend under that, I
would need to have the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
for Statutory jurisdiction. Can you tell me where
I might find those rules?

(There are no rules for Statutory jurisdiction.
The judge gets very angry at this point.)

Judge says, "If you want answers to questions like
that, you get yourself a LICENSED ATTORNEY. I'm
not allowed to practice law from the bench."

Defendant replies, "Oh, Your Honor, I don't think
anyone would accuse you of practicing law from
the bench if you just answer a few questions to
explain the NATURE of this action, so that I may
defend myself.

Judge says, "I told you before, I am not going to
answer any more questions. Do you understand that?
If you ask any more questions in regards to this,
I'm going to find you in CONTEMPT OF COURT! Now,
if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court
will provide you with one. But if you want those
questions answered, you must get yourself a
LICENSED ATTORNEY.

Defendant says, "Thank you, Your Honor, but let
me just see if I got this straight. Has the court
made a LEGAL DETERMINATION that it has authority
to conduct a CRIMINAL action against me, the
accused, under a SECRET JURISDICTION, the rules
of which are known only to this court and a
licensed attorney, thereby DENYING me the right
to defend in my own person?

He has no answer for that. The judge will
probably postpone the case and eventually just
let it go. Howard also tells of many cases that
he and others accused of a crime tested to verify
this process in court. The has 4 possible
answers - 1. Common Law jurisdiction, but as the
defendant above pointed out, there is no Corpus
Delicti, the judge may try to put a State
representative on the stand to prove he is
"damaged" in some way by the defendant's actions,
which of course he is not, besides which you
cannot damage the State because it is not a person
or property, it is a legal fiction (corporate
entity); 2. Equity, but no contract; 3. Statutory,
no Rules of Criminal Procedure (see above);
4. Admiralty, happens very rarely, once that
Howard knew of, Judge was shortly replaced for
revealing such a thing, no international maritime
contract.

Usually, the prosecution will try dismiss the case
citing not enough merit in it, or too much of a
work load, etc.

I hope you can help me verify this jurisdiction
issue above.

I am looking forward to any comments you have.

Thanks for your help.

Lee



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]