In Rem Proceedings
The SEIZURE of any property or vehicle is clearly an IN REM Court action. PERIOD! Impoundment of all property is an IN REM action under Admiralty jurisdiction. If a so called State Court is really a State Court, then it has NO jurisdiction to conduct an IN REM proceeding over the seizure of Any private property.
(A lawsuit against an item of property, not against a "person". Contrary to in personum.)
There is no law by which CONGRESS gave authority via the Constitution or any Statute to the so called STATE OF _________ and it's courts that allows county sheriffs and LEOs in all the States getaway with seizing a car or property for the so called STATE COURT to conduct an IN REM proceeding over the IMPOUNDMENT OF A Vehicle when a STATE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED IN REM ON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES TO WIT:
The right to proceed in rem is the distinctive remedy of the admiralty and hence administered exclusively by the United States courts in admiralty: no State can confer jurisdiction upon its courts to proceed in rem, nor could Congress give such power to a State, since it would be contrary to the constitutional grant of such power to the Federal Government*. The saving clause of the Judiciary Act and of the Judicial Code does not contemplate admiralty in a common law court." 1 Benedict on Admiralty (6th ed.) 38, section 23.
So what is the story here? I think we need an explanation. The State of Connecticut for example is not the same thing as STATE OF CONNECTICUT. One is the original de jure state of the union. The other a Federalized Municipal Territorial Corporation. The word "The" has a very specific meaning in a court.
The jurisdiction of a Federal Court of Admiralty is very narrow having been established only by direct grant under the constitution of the United States. A suit in Admiralty is designed *to bring the "RES" before the court for adjudication*. The "*bottom*" is sued and is made party defendant. (DRED SCOTT was treated as a PERSON or THING and was an IN REM action.)
(Res, = "thing that" used in conjunction with other terms. For example, in a suit involving a captured ship, the seized vessel is the res, and proceedings of this nature are said to be in rem. Res, however, does not always refer to tangible Personal Property. In matrimonial actions, for example, the res is the marital status of the parties. In personam is distinguished from in rem, which applies to property or "all the world" instead of a specific person)
As recently as 1951 and 1963, the Washington State Supreme Court has stated that:
"*The remedy saved to suitors by the judiciary code is the right to proceed in personam against the defendant. The Moses Taylor, supra*. With respect to actions in rem, the applicable principle, amply supported by authorities, is stated by Benedict, as follows: ***The right to proceed in rem is the distinctive remedy of the admiralty and hence administered exclusively by the United States courts in admiralty: no State can confer jurisdiction upon its courts to proceed in rem, nor could Congress give such power to a State, since it would be contrary to the constitutional grant of such power to the Federal Government*. The saving clause of the Judiciary Act and of the Judicial Code does not contemplate admiralty in a common law court." 1 Benedict on Admiralty (6th ed.) 38, section 23
An examination of the authorities leads us to subscribe to the above-quoted views of Benedict.. . . Moreover, the broad language of the opinion in one of these cases, Taylor v. Steamer Columbia (California), to the effect *that the states have the power to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon their own courts, was expressly disavowed in the later California case of Fischer v. Carey, supra*.
In another of these cited cases, The Alcalde, supra, the Federal court specifically refused to pass uponthe question of whether the state trial court had erred in appointing a receiver to take legal custody of the vessel. Appellants, being minority owners, are here confronted with an admiralty principle which prevents them from obtaining, in an admiralty court, the desired sale of the vessel for partition. They seek to circumvent that obstacle by applying to the state court for relief, and point to the saving clause above referred to as permitting this recourse.
The fundamental purpose of Art. III, section 2, of the Federal constitution was to;
"preserve adequate harmony and appropriate uniform rules relating to maritime matters and bring them within the control of the Federal Government."
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 64L.Ed. 834, 40 S. Ct. 438, 11 A.L.R. 1145. The saving clause was never intended as a device whereby litigants could escape the uniform application of the established principles of admiralty law, as contemplated by the constitution.
This is indicated by such decisions as Southern Pac. Co.v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 217, 61 L.Ed. 1086, 37 S. Ct. 524; Chelentis v. Luckenbach, S.S. Co., 247U.S. 372, 384, 62 L.Ed. 1171, 38 S. Ct. 501; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, supra; and Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 68 L.Ed. 646, 44 S. Ct. 302 (affirming 122Wash. 572)....
And in the Knickerbocker case, it was said, quoting the early case of The Lottawanna, 88 U.S.558, 22 L. Ed. 654:
"'That we have a maritime law of our own, operative throughout the United States cannot be doubted. . . . One thing, however, is unquestionable; the Constitution must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country. *It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several States**, as that would have defeated the uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the States with each other or with foreign states*.'" (pp. 160-161.)
Uh oh! We have a problem here.
1788 Original Constitution for the united States, IS the original organic, of the people government.
1871 Amended version CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, US is a private corporation.
The American people have NEVER surrendered their inherent and UNalienable rights to the corporation.
The UNITED STATES was formed in 1871, which controls only the District of Columbia and the territories it purchases or acquires; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virginia Islands. Using abbreviations like WA or NY Federalizes a territory as well as using a Zip code in one's mailings. This legitimizes the notion of federal peroperty. The United States of America is different from the "United States" [corporation].
The terms UNITED STATES and/or United States of America and/ or United States Government are all a private corporation, even with registered trademark
The US corporation (originally called the District of Columbia) does not effect or control the 50 sovereign states that are protected from the federal government by the US Constitution for the United States adopted in 1788.
There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People".
Constitution for the United States of America
United States - US- U.S.-USA-America ( a possession of the Queen of England)
Means: (A) a federal corporation . . . Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
`It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name "District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878; a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549, and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, and 6246; a de facto (define de facto) government, originally the ten square mile tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington D. C., plus the possessions, territories, forts, and arsenals.
The significance of this is that, as a corporation, the United States has no more authority to implement its laws against "We The People" than does MacDonald Corporations, except for one thing -- the contracts we've signed as surety for our strawman with the United States and the Creditor Bankers. These contracts binding us together with the United States and the bankers are actually not with us, but with our artificial entity, the en legis or as they term it "person", which appears to be us but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
All this was done under,
VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS.
In English Law. Courts established in the queen's possessions beyond the seas, with jurisdiction over maritime causes, including those relating to prize.
The United States of America is lawfully the possession of the English Crown per original commercial joint venture agreement between the colonies and the Crown, and the Constitution, which brought all the states (only) back under British ownership and rule. The American people, however, had sovereign standing in law, independent to any connection to the states or the Crown. This fact necessitated that the people be brought back, one at a time, under British Rule, and the commercial process was the method of choice in order to accomplish this task. First, through the 14th Amendment and then through the registration of our birth certificate and property. All courts in America are Vice-admiralty courts in the Crown’s private commerce.
