Admiralty vs. Article III

So there's something you just HAVE to get off your chest, and it doesn't fit into any of the above catagories? All spam, rants, and random chatter belongs in here.
Post Reply
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Admiralty vs. Article III

Post by editor » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:02 pm

The following post is an exchange I had with some other folks on a mailing list I subscribe to. The whole time I was writing my response I was thinking about Notmartha, and how she will probably use this as an idea for her "Terms of Art" section. If you're the kind of person who likes reading dictionaries (I am), you'll love Terms of Art.

Anyway...

******
FC writes,
Aren't our courts under Admiralty law since 1933? How do you expect to
get any fairness in the courts since the courts have been hijacked?
An attorney on the list responds:
No our Courts are not under Admiralty Law -⁠ our Courts function in
accordance with very intelligent rules that are very consistent with
our constitution. The law of the sea only applies to Maritime matters.
My response:
The laws which came to be known as "law of the sea" were historically a loose conglomeration of treaties between nations. These laws dealt primarily with territorial limits with regard to resources such as fish, and minerals, and relationships between nations.

In 1982 the United Nations drafted the "Law of the Seas Treaty" which replaced four 1958 treaties. This Treaty came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify.

Admiralty law is a completely separate concept from the "Law of the Sea". Each nation has its own admiralty laws which apply within that nation's jurisdiction.

Admiralty is often extended beyond the sea, onto dry land, and is applied according to context rather than venue.

The concept of "traffic" for example, as it applies to motor vehicles traversing across the county, is treated in the same fashion as oceangoing vessels within the jurisdiction of the United States.

In general, U.S. admiralty law is applied to all or most instances in which the Constitution's "Commerce Clause" would apply.

Of course the various branches of government, including federal, state, county, and municipal have all greatly overreached the original concept of commerce, and now apply it nearly everywhere.

That's the reason why, for example, if you have NEVER had a driver license and are arrested, you will be charged with "Driving on Suspended License". Absent the court's presumption that you are bound by the terms of the license, the law has no authority to punish you.

This is a very interesting field of study-- one which even after years I have not been able to find any silver bullets.

One interesting tidbit that is not commonly known, and might help get you started:

George Custer (of Little Bighorn fame) was a student at West Point. As part of their induction into West Point, all students were required to sign an oath placing them under admiralty jurisdiction. Custer neglected to sign the oath, and it was somehow overlooked.

In or about 1867, after Custer was appointed lieutenant colonel in the army, he was brought up on serious charges in a court martial. Desertion, was the most serious, if I remember correctly, and also something about the death of some of his men. If found guilty, Custer was to be executed.

More or less as a smokescreen, Custer mounted a defense based on conflicting orders of superior officers, and other sundry excuses. But in the midst of the trial he demanded a private conversation with the judge. In chambers he demanded the court produce his signature on the oath which, to make a long story short, the court could not produce since it did not exist.

A secret deal was made wherein Custer was found guilty of some of the less serious charges, and acquitted of the charges upon which he could be executed, on the condition he would thereafter sign the oath.
I learned the info about Custer at a The Right Way L.A.W. seminar in Ohio, back in the 1990s. I saw the documentation back then, but don't have a copy or citation, so I don't know where the speaker got it. The story was offered as an interesting lesson on the importance of jurisdiction.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Admiralty vs. Article III

Post by notmartha » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:48 am

editor wrote:The following post is an exchange I had with some other folks on a mailing list I subscribe to. The whole time I was writing my response I was thinking about Notmartha, and how she will probably use this as an idea for her "Terms of Art" section. If you're the kind of person who likes reading dictionaries (I am), you'll love Terms of Art.

Anyway...
:lol:
Here you go:

Admiralty

Law Merchant aka Mercantile Law

"Law of the Sea" aka "Admiralty Law" aka "Maritime Law" was begun over 5000 years ago with the Canaanites. The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. There were a lot of them – many, many tribes. They occupied the rich lowlands of Palestine, the cities of Tyre and Sidon being great commercial centers. They were famous merchants and seamen, and that is why the word “Canaanite” became synonymous with “merchant,” "trafficker" and “trader.” [see Strong’s # 3667 and #3669] They constructed their own system of merchant/maritime law. (I know merchant law and maritime law are defined differently, but like Editor said, admiralty jurisdiction is no longer understood to be limited to commerce on the sea, and this morphing originated with the Canaanites). They were also called Phoenicians, and their land was alternately called “land of Canaan” and “land of Phoenicia.”

The Israelites were commanded to destroy the Canaanites and take possession of their land. They didn't listen and we are still paying the price today.
Post Reply