Skip to main content

Why do the courts try and trick you into having your case tried under admiralty law instead of common law?

Los Angeles, CA |

I would just like to know why they do this and also of after you have established that you want your proceeding done under common law jurisdiction and you then hire an attorney would your trial then be tried under admiralty law?

Attorney Answers 3

Posted

Are you serious? Admiralty law? That is just one of those crackpot theories that the "all capital letters" and UCC nutcases blog about. No validity under the law whatsoever. Give it a rest. I hope you did not pay a lot for the seminar.

We do not have a client/attorney relationship until you make an appointment, we discuss your case face to face, I accept a retainer, and we explictly agree to enter into representation.

Mark as helpful

4 lawyers agree

Posted

You may find the following links to be eye-opening:

Mark as helpful

4 lawyers agree

3 comments

Christine C McCall

Christine C McCall

Posted

Excellent response; simply excellent.

L. Maxwell Taylor

L. Maxwell Taylor

Posted

Thank you. Best overview is the RationalWiki "Freeman on the Land" link.

Barry Franklin Poulson

Barry Franklin Poulson

Posted

Great link. In one confrontation with one of these (when I was the FOIA guy for a township), he told me he was a war with the US. I said, "Great! The J-- American Legion will be out Saturday at dawn. We may be old, but we can still shoot!" Did not hear from him again.

Posted

It is interesting the previous responses were by non-admiralty/ maritime lawyers. Unfortunately, the previous responses were actually non-responsive and could be down right harmful to you and your case.

You need to understand that Admiralty Law is, in fact, the “federal common law.” Meaning, that much of U.S. Admiralty law was created by the courts. Including, the issue of admiralty jurisdiction.

That being said, admiralty law also is comprised of a series of statutes (Jones Act, Longshore Act, Death on the High Seas Act, Suits in Admiralty Act, for example).

Here is the bottom line - if there is admiralty jurisdiction, then your case is going to be governed by Admiralty Law. Whether you like it or not. In some instances you may be far better off having your case be an admiralty case, rather than a “common law” case. Which, I assume you mean, fall under State Law, rather than Admiralty Law.

In a nutshell, if you were injured on a vessel in navigable waters of the United States (this is a term art); then your case probably falls under Admiralty law.

The bottom line, is I would need to know more about your case, facts, etc. in order to provide a more meaningful response.

Good luck.

Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree

2 comments

L. Maxwell Taylor

L. Maxwell Taylor

Posted

Respectfully, counsel, given your familiarity with Admiralty law, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the transcript at the following link: http://theforceiswithinyou.twilightlegend.net/t3936-robert-menard-freeman-on-the-land .... Not infrequently posters who have fallen under the delusional "freeman on the land" ideology articulated in that transcript (an ideology which includes misguided references to admiralty law), appear on this site and post questions. You would be well served by having a look at the ideology which frames their questions, so that you can spot such posters when they show up here.

L. Maxwell Taylor

L. Maxwell Taylor

Posted

"Freemen see a distinction between (what they call) common law and statute law, which they refer to as "admiralty law," "law of the sea," "maritime law" or the "universal commercial code" (a distortion of the US-only Uniform Commercial Code) — something that only applies to corporations, e.g. legal persons, not flesh-and-blood humans. They see admiralty law as being the law of commerce, the law of ownership, citizenship, and indeed anything else ending in "-ship." They see evidence of this in various nautical-sounding terms used in court, such as "dock," "birth (berth) certificate," "-ship" suffixes and any other fancy word they think might have a vaguely naval sound. Freemen will take this further by referring to the court as a "ship", its occupants as "passengers" and claiming that anyone leaving are "men overboard". This gives their legal arguments a hilarious nautical theme." They see courts as being a place of business intended to make profit for the government corporation. They sometimes refer to these courts as "de facto courts." When they receive a summons to appear in court, they insist that this is not a summons but, in fact, an invitation to a place of business to discuss the matter at hand.[24][20] When one initially enters a court they are then operating under "admiralty law" rather than (their version of) "common law." American freemen will sometimes try to argue that if the flag in the court has a gold fringe, this signifies that it is an admiralty court. . . They will try to claim common law (rather than admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking "do you have a claim against me?" which supposedly removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, forcing the court to proceed according to their version of common law. (This has never worked.) Any cooperation with the court is seen as accepting their terms of contract, and freemen will therefore refuse to do anything asked of them. When asked to stand or approach the bench, they will often refuse to do so, or only do so as long as their "inalienable God-given rights remain intact," in order to prevent them inadvertently entering into a contract. . . . . http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Maritime law topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics