The jurisdiction of the English Admiralty Court

[pleasuredome]

it seems that when you receive a summons from an admiralty court and you accept it, either tacitly or by implication, you have submitted yourself personally to the its jurisdiction. so, you would have to challenge the summons by noticing them the freeman way to reject their jurisdiction.

.... until the Judicature Acts, it was not possible to combine an action in rem with an action in personam in the Admiralty. Since The Dictator was decided in 1892 the law has been that once the owners enter an appearance (or in modern phraseology when they acknowledge issue of the writ) there are two parallel actions: an action in personam and an action in rem. From that moment the owners are defendants in the action in personam.


In The August 8 [1982] 2 A.C. 450, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, a former Admiralty judge, explained (at p. 456A-B).

"By the law of England, once a defendant in an Admiralty action in rem has entered an appearance in such action, he has submitted himself personally to the jurisdiction of the English Admiralty Court, and the result of that is that, from then on, the action continues against him not only as an action in rem but also as an action in personam."

The European Court held that an action in rem and an action in personam involve the same cause of action, the same object and the same parties: paragraphs 47 and 48. The Advocate General observed (at par 19 of his Opinion):

"No importance must therefore be attached to the fact that the proceedings in question may possibly be a different nature under the civil procedural law of one or other of the states concerned what is important is whether or not the substantive issues which the court is called upon are the same."

taken from http://www.publications.parliament.u...16/india01.htm

[dondaz]

"No importance must therefore be attached to the fact that the proceedings in question may possibly be a different nature under the civil procedural law of one or other of the states concerned what is important is whether or not the substantive issues which the court is called upon are the same."

Yeah right. They make different rules of proceedure in different EU states so it's harder for the sheeple to get a grasp ot it and basically they can make the rules up as they go along, which they do anyway. They can stick their civil law where their sun worshiping don't shine!

The motto here is do not contract by accepting a summons from them!

[wise haven]

Ayup!!

[killmicrosoft]

Originally Posted by pleasuredome

it seems that when you receive a summons from an admiralty court and you accept it, either tacitly or by implication, you have submitted yourself personally to the its jurisdiction. so, you would have to challenge the summons by noticing them the freeman way to reject their jurisdiction.



taken from http://www.publications.parliament.u...16/india01.htm

what does this actually mean

forgive me if im being thick

[pleasuredome]

Originally Posted by killmicrosoft

what does this actually mean

forgive me if im being thick

basically, you're considered to be the person when you accept a summons, and then you come under admiralty jurisdiction. so if you dont want to come under that jurisdiction, you need to discharge the summons with a notice

[cacadores]

Originally Posted by pleasuredome

basically, you're considered to be the person when you accept a summons, and then you come under admiralty jurisdiction. so if you dont want to come under that jurisdiction, you need to discharge the summons with a notice

Well, it's interesting.

But how many of us are likely to be charged with an offence at sea? Have you got a particular case in mind?

[micklemus]

Indeed. Furthermore:-

An action in rem is an action in which relief is not sought against, or punishment sought to be inflicted on any person.

An action in personam is one in which relief is sought against or punishment sought to be inflicted on a specific person.

Actions in rem in the Admiralty Court were generally instituted to try claims to some property or title or status, eg to condemn a ship.

In The August (1982) mentioned in the opening post [Incidentally a Privy Council procedural decision relating to Singapore] it was simply held that that on the true construction of Ord.14 (the old rule relating to summary judgment), the High Court had jurisdiction to enter summary judgment in an action in rem. In this case it had been submitted that Ord.14 can only apply to actions in personam. The Privy Council disagreed. It went on to hold that even were that not the case, the unconditional entering of an appearance allowed the action to proceed as an action in personam in any event.

It's just an old procedural decision relating to admiralty actions. The case concerned a dispute involving a ship's master who started an Admiralty action in rem against the ship and her owners in the High Court of Singapore. The Privy Council was essentially saying you can't distinguish in rem and in personam actions as a means of dodging Ord. 14. There were only a few cases which were not covered by Ord. 14 (then explained in Ord. 1) and thus Ord. 1 made it clear that it was irrelevant whether an action was in rem or in personam.

[pleasuredome]

Originally Posted by cacadores

Well, it's interesting.

But how many of us are likely to be charged with an offence at sea? Have you got a particular case in mind?

how likely is it that you would enter into an admiralty court? pretty much every time you walk into a court de facto.

cursus curiae est lex curiae - The practice of the court is the law of the court

[1694]

Do UK union flags have a gold fringe when displayed in court?

[micklemus]

PS - I should also make make clear that in the United Kingdom at least the conspiracy theory that all legal matters are subject to some bizarre Admiralty jurisdiction is just that - a theory. I'm afraid it has no basis in fact. There is such a thing as Admiralty Law however and I know David Icke mentions Admiralty Law in relation to the United States - with the claim that it has universal application there. That may or may not be true for the US, I don't know, but it isn't true here.

[dreamweaver]

Originally Posted by 1694

Do UK union flags have a gold fringe when displayed in court?

I don't recall ever seeing a Union Flag in court. What you will see instead is the royal coat of arms (the lion and the unicorn) displayed behind the magistrates or judge. Judges are officially representatives of the crown.

The "fringe on flag" argument used in the US has been dismissed time and time again by the way. Here's the case law:

Objection to fringe on flag: US v. Warren (NDNY unpub 1/22/98); Slangal v. Cassel (D Neb 1997) 962 F.Supp 1214 ("I find and conclude that any complaint predicated in whole or in part upon the allegation that jurisdiction is based upon 'the American Free Flag of Peace, title 4 USC 1' ... or a similar allegation is frivolous, malicious and intended to harass. The plaintiff or anyone else who has filed ... such a 'flag' suit is notified that any such suit filed after this date will be dismissed sua sponte without notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."); Lee v. Maass (1992) 111 Ore App 412, 826 P2d 97 revw denied 313 Ore 210, 830 P2d 596; Vella v. McCammon (SD Tex 1987) 671 F.Supp 1128 ("not only without merit but also totally frivolous"); State v. Whalen (Ariz.App 1997) 192 Ariz 103, 961 P2d 1051 app.denied (Ariz Supm unpub 9/10/98); Bartrug v. Rubin (ED Va 1997) 986 F.Supp 332; Commonwealth v. Appel (1994) 438 Penn.Super. 214, 652 A2d 341; State v. Svee (unpub 1/12/88) 143 Wisc.2d 892(t), 421 NW2d 117(t); Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997) 974 F.Supp 1411; McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647 ("Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman." and quoting the 34 Op. US Atty-Gen 483 [1925] that "In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag and it is without heraldic significance." and citing most other published court cases on this topic); Schneider v. Schlaefer (ED Wisc 1997) 975 F.Supp 1160 (quoting McCann case and Atty-Gen Op and "from this day forward litigants ... are put on notice that any claims or defenses based upon the alleged pre-eminence of the ‘American Flag of Peace’ over any other flag are frivolous and sanctionable."); Moeller v. D’Arrigo (ED Va 1995) 163 FRD 489; ("As to the physical composition of the flag in the courtroom, the General Services Administration and the Administrative Office of the Courts supply furnishings for the courtroom. Defendants should address any complaints about the form of the courtroom flag to the General Services Administration.") US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal unpub 4/30/97) 79 AFTR2d 2784 recons.den (ED Cal 1998) 27 F.Supp.2d 1191; R. Jones v. T.G. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 9/29/97); Murray v. State of Wyoming (10th Cir unpub 3/16/99) 176 F3d 489(t)("This argument is indisputably meritless."); ("Federal jurisdiction is determined by statute, not by whether the flag flown is plain or fringed.") US v. Schiefen (D SoDak 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff’d 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074; ("Such objections to the court's flag, or even to the absence of any flag, have uniformly been dismissed as meritless because the type of flag displayed does not affect federal jurisdiction.") Lang v. Dieleuterio (D NJ unpub 2/17/99); Hancock v. State of Utah (10th Cir unpub 5/10/99) 176 F3d 488(t); R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98); R. Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96); US v. Dunkel (ND IL unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6529 rev. in part on other grnds (7th Cir unpub 7/1/97) 80 AFTR2d 5148, 97 USTC para 50565; Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86)(claiming that "the presence of an alleged gold fringed military flag in the courtroom indicates this [state] court is not a constitutional court."); State v. Martz (Ohio App. unpub 6/9/97) app.dismissed 80 Ohio St.3d 1423, 685 NE2d 237 ("Appellant claims the trial court was without jurisdiction ... because the courtroom displayed a military style US flag with gold fringe. We disagree."); (claimed the fringe on the American flag "the court was thus a foreign power, and the trial judge was the supreme ruler of a foreign power, devoid of any jurisdiction over him") City of Belton v Horton (Mo.App 1997) 947 SW2d 104; similarly Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99); (this one said that fringe on the flag made it a militiary court) Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86); (the defendant's objection to the fringed flag was emphasized by the prosecution during cross-examination, and similarly during the cross-examination of the defendant's fellow militia group members, and on appeal the exploitation of the defendant's objection to the courtroom flag was held to be so prejudicial, because it was calculated to arouse the jury's hostility to the defendant, that the conviction was overturned) G.D. Fowler v. State (Ark.App 1999) 67 Ark.App 114, 992 SW2d 804; (suing federal judges, IRS agents and US Attorney for constructive treason, etc. because of fringed flag) Dulisse v. Twardowski (ED Penn unpub 7/16/98); (similarly "this Court is persuaded that the American Flag statute cannot be relied on as a jurisdictional basis for a [civil rights] action." Rule 11 sanctions imposed) Dunkel v. McCloskey (ED Penn unpub 11/25/98); Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97) ("Judge Wilbert's jurisdiction is in no way predicated on ... the design of the US flag."); US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224 ("decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction"); Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97); State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97); (tried to sue judge for not removing fringed flag nor installing "a flag that met plaintiffs' specifications"; court imposed Rule 11 fine of $1000) Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326; (trying to sue a town official and a judge for "accepting" a fringed US flag supposedly thereby "suppressing" the perp's rights) Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub 6/18/98); similarly (suing federal judges, US Attorneys, county registrars, IRS agents, and some big corporations because of fringed flag. "The complaint will be dismissed not because this court operates under the regal splendor of a gold fringed flag but because the complaint is legally absurd.") Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967; ditto J. Rogers v. Borough of Manhattan (a person) (SDNY unpub 10/1/98); ditto (claimed the presence of a fringed flag denied him a fair trial and constituted treason) Joyner v. Borough of Brooklyn (EDNY unpub 3/18/99); {Oddly enough in a 1972 prosecution for desecration of the US flag, the defendant - charged for wearing a minature flag sewn to the seat of his pants - attempted to introduce the testimony of a flag expert, described by the court as "a so-called vexillologist", (who, evidently on cross-examination, testified that the patch flag "conformed to official standards"), but the court ruled that it was not necessary for the flag to have qualified as an official flag meeting the dimensions and proportions set forth in a Presidential Executive Order for purchase and use by federal agencies in order for the jury to convict under the flag desecration law. Goguen v. Smith (D Mass 1972) 343 F.Supp 161 aff'd (on other grounds) 471 F2d 88 aff'd 415 US 566.} In a criminal trial, the judge was within his authority to order the prosecutor to remove his American flag lapel pin, for fear of arousing the prejudices of the jury during the height of the Gulf War. Montgomery v. Muller (1992) 176 App.Div.2d 29, 580 NYS2d 110

[micklemus]

Originally Posted by 1694

Do UK union flags have a gold fringe when displayed in court?

They're not displayed in UK courts, the Coat of Arms is (Dieu et Mon Droit), which will take us back to the point about the legal system being the province of the Monarch, like Parliament, which is why declaring freedom from statute etc is meaningless.

[1694]

I just wondered how many people checked where the idea of admiralty law came from? (clearly some have, others perhapse not.)

I believe their was a US navy regulation that stated their flags must have a gold fringe.....from which spring the idea that any gold fringed flag can only be a navy flag. So if a court room had a gold fringed flag it must be an navy court.

All marine recruits have crew cuts, anyone with a crew cut is in the marines.

[micklemus]

I THINK (and I stand to be corrected) that it has something to do with the freeman understanding of common law and Roman Law and how the latter is linked with maritime law, which seems to have resulted in a mental leap to maritime law = Admiralty Law = every law of the land and the basis for British legal procedure; and that "common law" is the antidote. Which unfortunately is wrong.

.........In the UK - as I frequently emphasise in my posts.

[dragond]

Originally Posted by micklemus

I THINK (and I stand to be corrected) that it has something to do with the freeman understanding of common law and Roman Law and how the latter is linked with maritime law, which seems to have resulted in a mental leap to maritime law = Admiralty Law = every law of the land and the basis for British legal procedure; and that "common law" is the antidote. Which unfortunately is wrong.

.........In the UK - as I frequently emphasise in my posts.

so what u saying? becoming a freemen in the UK is not possible?? how about the people who have become freemen on the land in UK? can u clarify this pls

D

[micklemus]

Almost, yes, but not that it's a dead duck.

I'm saying to all who are interested in this that they should truly check for themselves. I'm also saying that UK "freemen" seem on the whole to have misunderstood how the UK operates and, most importantly, what withdrawal of consent actually requires. For the most part this seems to be more about barrack room lawyerism and I would add that in that respect most of the advice I've seen is appallingly wide of the mark. Truly being a freeman requires something more fundamental than posting a notice or two and swearing a declaration (incidentally they're incorrect anyway). You have to understand what you're withdrawing your consent from and, as I've said already, what that necessitates.

There is also an issue with numbers too (i.e. the number of freemen) but I suspect that's one of the reasons why there are all kinds of moves to get people on the bandwagon now. The overriding issue is consent though, in my mind anyway.

So it's not so much a case of it can't work but more one of people being badly misguided over what they believe is necessary. Only my view of course, but without wishing to condescend anyone I can say I've got far more relevant background knowledge than many and that's why I keep posting comments to the effect that people really need to check for themselves and not get tempted into being led by others. I'm actually trying to help but I don't want to lead anyone.

...and again I can only speak for this country.

...and I continue to keep an open mind.

[rjl9332]

Originally Posted by micklemus

There is such a thing as Admiralty Law however and I know David Icke mentions Admiralty Law in relation to the United States - with the claim that it has universal application there. That may or may not be true for the US, I don't know, but it isn't true here.

Queenie's court system operates internationally via the BAR association, as one big franchise, and the law of money or contracts is quite literally Admiralty Law - Uniform Commercial Code. So i'm afraid you are incorrect here. I'd suggest kicking off with occult world of commerce by jordan maxwell

[micklemus]

My friend if that's a challenge I accept.

Please quote your authority if, as you appear to be suggesting, you believe Roman civil law is the uniform worldwide legal code. And please do also clarify your reference to the BAR Association. If you're referring to the various national bar associations (the UK's being the Bar Council) then that would be very interesting indeed - as these are just professional bodies with no legislative power. Or do you mean the British Association of Removers??

Incidentally if you want me to give you an indication of the material I use every single day, I could list dozens and years of relevant academic experience.

So please, lets see your authority/authorities and see where I've gone wrong....

And please also tell me how this Uniform Commercial Code addresses the question of consent in the UK.

[micklemus]

PS - I hasten to post an apology for the sarcasm in my last post. Sorry rjl9332.

I say that because I misread the final sentence of your post which for some reason wrongly computed in my head as a reference to World of Commerce by Sweet & Maxwell (not a publication which I recognise, hence the sarcasm).

I'm sorry, I misread. I will look at that book by Jordan Maxwell, but I accept the challenge nevertheless (albeit now in a friendly and non-sarcastic way!)

[pleasuredome]

Originally Posted by dreamweaver

The "fringe on flag" argument used in the US has been dismissed time and time again by the way. Here's the case law:

so it should. you can't voluntarily walk onto a ship and then moan about the flag it flies.