Politics and Money

[IxCimi]

Have you ever read Benedict On Admiralty?

It states and shows how Admiralty laws are not allowed in the State courts of the united States.

The right to proceed in rem is the distinctive remedy of the admiralty and hence administeredexclusively by the United States courts in admiralty: no State can confer jurisdiction upon its courtsto proceed in rem, nor could Congress give such power to a State, since it would be contrary to theconstitutional grant of such power to the Federal Government*. The saving clause of the JudiciaryAct and of the Judicial Code does not contemplate admiralty in a common law court." 1 Benedicton Admiralty (6th ed.) 38, section 23

The following quotation from Knapp, Stout and Company vs. McCaffery,178 Ill. 107, 69 Am. St. Rep. 290 at page 299, well illustrates the distinction between an Admiralty suit and a suit in equity for an accounting:

"The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to administer relief by proceeding in rem in Admiralty is unquestionably exclusive. Such proceeding, however, is against the property only. The distinguishing and characteristic feature of such suit is, that the vessel or thing proceeded against is itself seized and impleaded as the defendant, and is judges and sentenced accordingly. It is this dominion of a suit in Admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives the title madeunder its decree validity against all the world.

(Citing The Moses Taylor, 4 WALL. 411). No person is a defendant in such a suit. Parties who have real or personal interests determine for themselves whether they will appear and protect their interests. When a sale is made in such a proceeding, it is good against the whole world. No suchremedy was sought here. This was a suit against persons. No one would be bound by decree herein except those made parties.

A sale, though purporting to be of the property, would really be only a sale of the interests of the defendants therein. A personal decree for the deficiency, if any, mightfollow. The equitable circumstances before mentioned, growing out of the sale and assignment, a denial of possession, intention to seize the property, the duty of McCaffery to protect it from a rise of the river, and the obstacles to so doing put in his way by the Knapp Company, all furnish ground for equitable cognizance. We cannot hold that because a proceeding against the raft in Admiralty might afford some conflict, therefore a court of equity must keep its hand off, if equitable circumstances exist which justify its granting relief on well established equitable principles against persons made defendants.

Moreover, if the case had any likeness to a suit in rem in Admiralty when it was started, it lost that distinctive character when the Knapp Company at its own request, took the raft and left a personal bond in its place. Thereafter the suit was wholly in personam." Citing Johnson vs. The Chicago Etc. Elevator Company, 119 U.S. 388, Gindele vs. Corrigan, 28 Ill. App. 476, 129 Ill. 582, 16 Am. St. Rep. 292."

This means any seizure of ANY property of ANY man or Woman in America is either fraud or of a jurisidction not being revealed either in general or in a "State" Court.

It's fraud, it's called warring with the Constitution and IT is an act of treason.