Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Fw: [SMTL_DISCUSS] Admiralty and you

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Very interesting...I didn t think it was necessary. I disclaimed admiralty, but claimed common law rights. I saw that post where someone said all the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:49 AM, JD wrote:

      > There was a man in California who sued himself, by bringing the state
      > court into admiralty - common law.

      Very interesting...I didn't think it was necessary. I disclaimed
      admiralty, but claimed common law rights. I saw that post where
      someone said all the "administrative actions" were admiralty. I think
      that a hearing can come before an "action" can be said to exist. In
      fact, I believe that some "actions" are born at hearings, and some
      hearings go childless. It's that kind I'm after, a hearing that shows
      that an action would not only be improper, but unwise and possibly
      causing damages to properties and careers, and the public's perception
      of their representatives. I would rather forget about it and have a
      nice day, how about you?
      > 28 USC Sec. 1333
      > Sec. 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
      > The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the
      > courts of the States, of:
      >         (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime
      > jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to
      > which they are otherwise entitled.
      > The ''saving to suitors'' clause in sections 41(3) and 371(3) of
      > title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the
      > words ''any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled'' for
      > the words ''the right of a common law remedy where the common law
      > is competent to give it.'

      Isn't it great how "historical and revision notes" can seem to change
      the law right before our eyes, even though we know that they really do
      not, they just make it harder to see. This is a great remedy, really.
      But then you have to be ready to follow through and withstand all the
      tricks of the opposition. They will try to bluff you off course at
      every opportunity.
      > Somewhere in my files I have copy of the 1940 edition of Title 28, and
      > the comments were that the common law would remain as a remedy,

      Of course, it had to.

      > and it appears that the court must be placed into admiralty to invoke
      > the common law.

      I do not understand why, unless it has to do with the bankruptcy or
      something along those lines...maybe part of the martial rule under E.O.
      100. But I've done fine avoiding admiralty so far. I really don't
      mind whose offices we hold my first hearing in, because I'm going to
      make it a special session of the one supreme Court and after I
      disqualify everybody, if there's anybody left, we can see whether this
      was their idea, or did some "boss" somewhere put them up to it,
      supposedly as "just a part of doing their job"? Conspiracy charges are
      better the more names you have!
      > The California case at law, was Michael Smith , Reversinor, and
      > Absolute Natural Individual, Plaintiff  vs.  Michael Smith,
      > Beneficiary, and All Agents, Representatives, and the State of
      > California, Public Vessel, Department of Vital Statistics, Defendants
      > Complaint At Law To Quiet Title to One's Self.

      Ha! I wonder if that is the same Michael Smith that I knew who also
      travelled without licenses and plates and such many years ago. We had
      quite a few people around here doing it, and the courts were busy for
      years. That sounds like something he'd do! But it ignores too much
      prior to getting to that point, if you know what I mean.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.