Replies

This article is full of errors of fact, misquotations, made up citations, and logical fallacies. I could spend days listing the errors as there isn't a paragraph in it that is without errors.

I'll randomly pick a paragraph:

I'll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let's say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn't. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

First of all, "equity law" is misnomer. However, the powers of a court in "equity" are well defined, are refering to remedies and not limited to contract law.

Further, the UCC ( what is it about the Uniform Commercial Code that gets whackos so excited? ) does not apply to all contracts. The UCC, by its own terms, applies to contracts for goods, not services.

In fact, whenever you see a screed like this, if there is a reference to the UCC you can guarantee that its kookytime. The whole paragraph is incoherent because a court's jurisdiction is sometimes but not always related to the substantive law.

Another misstatement statement is:

All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789. "It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise." -- Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

The attempt is being made to claim that because Federal district courts are statutorily created with jurisdiction over cases in admiralty law that therefore whatever happens in that court is happening in this whacky conspiracy land called "admiralty". This is a logical fallacy and simple misrepresentation.

I could tear apart any and every other paragraph. There are tons of refutations of this "admiralty law" and the yellow flag fringe nonsense available for those who for some bizarre desire wish to read more.

When I am ticketed for a seat belt violation, why am I denied a right to a jury trial?

If the US is in bankruptcy, what are the instruments of law that manage that bankruptcy, who are our creditors?

What (unspecified but implied) contractual obligations am I under when I have a SS# or drivers license?

Are violations of 'regulations' or 'code' as opposed to 'duly published law' adjudicated by a 'tribunal court' or 'court of admirality'?

In fact, whenever you see a screed like this, if there is a reference to the UCC you can guarantee that its kookytime.

You can save your self a whole lot of reading if you just hit "find on this page" and enter UCC. If you find it, forget it.

The only thing missing here is the whole "esquire is a title of nobility" rave/rant.

People wouldn't think of trying to perform brain surgery without training (even that doc in Peru with the hardware store drill), why do they think they can practice law? The mind boggles.