Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Discuss anything about life situation.

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:59 pm

you're welcome, I figured the posts I gave you especially annotation 15 would have enough case law telling you what is in admiralty and what isn't.

But I will await your response.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
---
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 44 time
Have thanks: 78 time

 

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:56 pm

You bet.
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Harvester » Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:12 pm

You may find this helpful in your research. I did. Helped me become a successful NONtaxpayer 8 years running now. BTW, the strawman (LEGAL NAME, IT, U.S. person, trust account, legal fiction) can be useful at times so I didn't kill it off.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/AreYouLostAtC.pdf
Taxim of disinfo: 100% freeze-dried instant user. "Can't produce a win 'cuz it's not real."
Harvester
Enlightened
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:42 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 3 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Shikamaru » Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:57 am

snoop4truth wrote:Dear wealllbe20,

Thanks for your timely response to my inquiry about case law that you believe supports the proposition that we are in admiralty (jurisdiction). I was hoping to read something definite and unequivocal on this subject in the case law that you posted. But, I was unable to find anything definite and unequivocal in that case law.

I began my research into admiralty jurisdiction this weekend. I reached this conclusion. The law does not generally serve to disprove the existence of jurisdiction that is not there. The law tends to only prove the existence of jurisdiction that is there. So, my research on this subject was difficult. But, I located a sufficient number of decisions on Google Scholar that define the limits of admiralty jurisdiction. I will post my results when I get the time.


Might I suggest Benedict on Admiralty ?

Another great read on Admiralty and Admiralty jurisdiction is the Supreme Court case Delovio v. Boit (1815).

Maritime Law should be added to this all as well.

It wouldn't hurt, when you have time, to study Equity jurisdiction as a side. I would start with the writings of one C.C. Langdell as to Equity, Equity jurisdiction, and Equity pleadings.
Equity descends from the Law of Remedies.

Both Equity and Admiralty jurisdiction (as well as Ecclesiastical Law), in process and procedures, descend from Roman Civil Law.
Shikamaru
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:56 am
Has thanked: 326 time
Have thanks: 280 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Shoonra » Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:14 am

from my own compilation:

It appears that all or most of the nonsense about admiralty comes from a very old court decision -- De Lovio v. Boit (D. Mass 1815) 7 Fed.Cas. nr. 3776 page 418, in which the court [Associate Justice Joseph Story] said, after a very long lecture on the history of admiralty law, that “My judgment accordingly is that policies of insurance are within ... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States.” (page 444). This is quoted repeatedly in militia-type literature to suggest that automobile insurance, and therefore all court cases involving automobiles, are subject to admiralty law (which would be in federal courts). This is ridiculous. To begin with, De Lovio v. Boit was entirely concerned with a marine insurance policy covering the voyage of a sailing ship and its cargo, and the issue was whether the litigation over this insurance should take place in a federal court or in a state court, and no other kind of insurance was even mentioned in the decision; cf. K.H. Volk, Jurisdiction of Marine Insurance Transactions, 66 Tulane L. Rev. 257; and W.A. Fletcher, The General Common Law and Section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, The Example of Marine Insurance, 97 Harvard L. Rev. 1513. It is possible that Justice Story or the original typesetter inadvertently dropped a word from the sentence that would have made clear that he was speaking only about the insurance policies in that case. Back in 1815 when this was written, the majority of the insurance business dealt with ships and their cargo, rather than life or health or accident or fire insurance; certainly it can be argued that, in 1815, there was positively no automobile insurance. Moreover, it appears that Justice Story was a bit expansive in his phrasing whenever it involved maritime law; see Welch v. Texas Dept of Highways & Public Transp. (1987) 483 US 468 at 493 footnote 25.

Even in Massachusetts, where the De Lovio case had been decided, the state (non-admiralty) courts continued to hear cases involving conventional life and fire insurance. Altho this case is much mentioned in militia-type propaganda, it has NEVER been cited by a court in an automobile driving case. Its confinement to cases that are obviously maritime is often stated; e.g., Royal Ins. Co. v. Pier 39 Ltd (9th Cir 1984) 738 F2d 1035 at 1036; even while mentioning the De Lovio case the Supreme Court held that a forklift accident that took place on pier where boats were docked was not an admiralty case, Victory Carriers Inc. v. Law (1971) 404 US 202. (It is easy to surmise that a word was inadvertently dropped out of Justice Story’s sentence.) Some propaganda also quotes some court decisions, some of them very old, about admiralty courts having jurisdiction over contract and personal injury claims, etc., but it turns out that these cases were themselves admiralty cases involving contracts or injuries directly involving boats. The mere fact that a boat or body of water is mentioned in a case does not make it an admiralty case; a contract for work or deliveries on land relating to boats, or an income tax case arising from such a contract, “does not sound in admiralty.” Hunsaker v. US (2005) 66 Fed.Claims 129, 95 AFTR2d 2953, 2005 USTC 50474 affd (Fed.Cir 7/13/06) 197 Fed.Appx 912, 98 AFTR2d 5302. This same De Lovio v. Boit decision was cited by a court when it rejected an attempt by a pro se litigant to couch his lawsuit against the IRS as an admiralty case, and used this decision to prove “that admiralty jurisdiction covers only disputes over all contracts which relate to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea.” R.O. Davenport v. Rossotti (D.S.C. 6/13/06).
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 4923
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby palani » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:18 am

Shoonra wrote:This is ridiculous.

I can recall obtaining a contractors liability insurance policy that had explicit provisions for INLAND MARINE coverage.

From the existence of smoke generally is inferred the presence of fire.

Stay thirsty my friend.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 158 time
Have thanks: 462 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Shoonra » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:17 am

As a generality, "inland marine coverage" is insurance on what would have been cargo in maritime shipping, but covering any misadventures to that cargo after it arrives on dry land. It may even cover cargo that never crossed water. It is not the same as maritime insurance that actually covers things nautical and onboard a ship. I am not even sure that "inland marine" cases are heard in admiralty court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_marine_insurance
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 4923
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:14 pm

Shoonra,

I already knew that you were intelligent, literate and thoughtful. I already knew that your critical thinking skills were extraordinary. But, your posts above absolutely BLOW ME AWAY!!!!!
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:11 pm

have you guys read this?
and the cases cited in the footnotes?
Who decides on admiralty jurisdiction?
legislative branch or judicial?
what does that article say about the scope of admiralty jurisdiction?

yes the DeLovio case in is the footnotes wayy up.

Annotation 15 - Article III
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
---
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 44 time
Have thanks: 78 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby PHOSPHENE » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:30 pm

Image
"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful" - Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788)
User avatar
PHOSPHENE
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:31 pm
Location: Shell Beach
Has thanked: 103 time
Have thanks: 213 time

PreviousNext

Return to Living and Survival

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

suspicion-preferred