Why Almost All Courts In Western-Roman Systems Controlled By The Legal Pirates Are Admiralty

If something “looks like a duck”, “walks like a duck”, “quacks like a duck”, is it a duck?  This analogy summarizes the enormous frustration associated with “Admiralty Law” for many over the years.

When one is accused and brought to court in many Western-Roman jurisdictions, the accused is placed in a “dock” – a nautical term for a place for “holding a vessel”.  A listing on a court “docket” then exists – again an admiralty term relating to the harbor masters control of proceedings in his port.  The case then has its own docket of evidence as a manifest, a nautical commercial concept associated with the transport of goods. One may then be compelled to identify themselves with a “birth certificate” – birth being a direct reference to the creation of a vessel with a specific registration number. The concept of bail and security- are specific laws of admiralty, not common law. The person presiding over the matter sits in front of a flag, denoting himself to be a “flag officer” – a specific reference to a vice admiral under admiralty law.

All of these fundamental functions in modern court are directly nautical and associated with admiralty law- having absolutely nothing to do with common law. So why do the courts refuse to admit they are operating as admiralty and why has it taken so long to put these issues to rest?

Hiding Admiralty Jurisdiction “In Plain Sight”

Part of the answer as to why so many good and intelligent people have struggled to see that virtually all courts in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, United Kingdom and most other Western-Roman places are operating in admiralty is the lack of full knowledge as to just how “large” admiralty law truly is.

One of the deliberate disinformation arguments that is still purported by pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is that admiralty law is “narrow” in its breadth and application.  Therefore, it could not possibly be so openly applied across the board as there is no provision for it to be applied for example in matters of securities, contracts, torts, administrative discipline, trusts, estates and probate.

This excuse it turns out is utterly false.  Since its formal creation in the mid-17th Century, there exists numerous statutes that clearly show admiralty can be applied and appear to “mimic” every single major area of “common law” – every, not just some.

Another argument thrown up as a deliberate distraction by paid disinfo agents and the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is the claim that even if admiralty law has wide applications, there is no logical proof provided by such claimants as to how the “law of the sea” can be properly applied to courts on land.

This argument typically focuses on the more bizarre theories proposed on the land as well as the stranger concepts such as water marks being set at the highest point in each state so we are all “under water” to rebut such assertions as absurd and less than credible.

Again the pirates and privateers are openly and knowingly lying to the people they claim to uphold as the proof and method of how admiralty law is applied to each and every one of us- is breathtakingly simple and obvious- (1) we each require a birth certificate and registration and (2) we are birthed in hospitals that literally means a military establishment and legally is treated itself as a “vessel”- with hospitals both “commissioned” and “launched” and with people formally “admitted” “onboard” and discharged.

This is not fanciful conspiracy- this is common sense,  basic intelligence of what is shown to you “in plain sight” every day.  Birth, is a nautical term and related prior to the 19th Century solely to vessels. What hospital births and birth certificate registrations demonstrate to anyone who cares to stop for a moment and think about it- is that you are capable of being treated as either (a) a seaman or officer (by virtue of hospital birth and registration) or (b) a registered vessel.

So the courts need not enter into any complex or convoluted arguments to apply admiralty law- it is fully automated.  Once they confirm your name, your residence and you “understand”- then they can proceed.  You have been under admiralty law- since “birth”.

Admiralty as the ultimate “Organized Psuedo-Legal Commercial Argument” (OPCA)

Why then has it taken so long to fully discern and make the all pervading nature of admiralty law clear?  Why the arguments of administrative law? of different forms of law in operation such as trust law and estate law?

In truth there are still multiple forms of law in operation and in parallel.  For example estate law and trust law are very real and the creation of Cestui Que Trusts and Estates for our benefit are very real. It is just we are deprived from dealing directly with these forms of law in courts operating under the psuedo-legal commercial form known as admiralty.

Admiralty needs real law such as common law to continue- why?  so the pirates can rape and pillage what should be yours, to steal from your estate.  At the same time, admiralty is capable of mimicking all these forms of law, so when bonds and trusts are formed as part of court cases, it appears the judge or magistrate is switching law forms- which is not necessarily the case.

So how might we better comprehend Admiralty law?  Here then is a summary of canons from the book of canons of sovereign law from the site One-Heaven.Org, article 190:

Canon 6803
Admiralty (Admiralty Law) refers to a organized pseudo-legal commercial (OPCA) form of law first formed in the early 18th Century, but falsely claimed of much older provenance, whereby the operation of the “law of the land” and “laws of nations” is suspended during times of controversy and belligerence in favour of a legal system based loosely around maritime themes and mimicking all other forms of law “on the land” for the exercising of jurisdiction over causes, both civil and criminal, commerce, navigation, capture and transfer of property and the conduct and behavior of public servants as if military personnel.

Canon 6804
The word Admiral is an English military title first formed in the 16th Century from three common Latin terms ad meaning “to”, mira meaning “wonderful, marvelous  amazing, surprising, awesome” and alis meaning “a wing of the military”. Hence, the original and literal meaning of the title Admiral was “to command a wonderful, marvelous  amazing, surprising, awesome wing of the military”. The claim that the title is a borrowed Arabic title amir-ar-rahl meaning “chief of the transport” is an absolute absurdity and clumsy insult to intelligence as for England under Henry VIII and his Venetian advisors to honor the Ottomans at the time by using an alleged title would have been an unthinkable and mortal insult against both nations.

Canon 6805
The title “Vice Admiral” is a formal term defining a senior naval flag officer rank. The word “vice” is a Latin word equivalent to “agent” and means “on account of; like”. Therefore a “Vice Admiral” is a senior flag officer acting as agent for an Admiral or Lord Admiral. The term flag officer refers to one who acts in such a capacity as an “agent for an admiral” as being a duly commissioned officer, senior enough to be entitled to fly the flag to mark where the office exercises command. Thus the presence of an admiralty flag within a court room or place near or immediately behind the location of an official is demonstration of an Admiralty claim of possession of such authority and jurisdiction for the office and one occupying such office.

Canon 6806
While the codes, laws and practices decorating the interior of court rooms may vary in different jurisdictions, the presence of a specific flag and ensign of admiralty authority within a court room has always denoted specific power and authority since the 18th Century and if argued as purely ceremonial is an admission of fraud and treason by both the court and officials making such claims:

(i) In the United States, the presence of a gold fringed flag in a court room is a formal claim of the court being Admiralty. Any contrary claim is an admission of abuse of official seals and signs and subject to serious criminal penalties; and

(ii) In British plantations, the presence of the State flag, whether or not it is gold trimmed is also recognized as an admiralty flag.

Canon 6807
The first Lord Admiral appointed in Western-Roman history was Tommaso Morosini (b.1485 – d.1540) also known as “Thomas the Moor”, “Thomas the sorcerer”, the son of Nicolò Morosini granted the royal title by King Henry VIII (1509 – 1547) upon the formation of the first naval dockyards in English history in 1512/13 at Woolwich on the south bank of the River Thames near the palace of King Henry VIII at Greenwich:

(i) In 1512 the Pisans and Venetians brought with them master ship makers and the skills to build carracks superior to the Genoese and Portuguese . By 1514 completed the first great carrack known as Henri Grâce à Dieu “Henry by Grace of God” (Great Harry) being 165 ft (50m), 1,500 ton, 43 heavy gun, 141 light gun, 1,000 crew. Several great carracks followed from the Woolwich dockyards including the Saint Peter, Saint Michael and the famous Saint Mary (Mary Rose); and

(ii) By 1517, a merchant stores and dock at Deptford was converted and expanded into the second fully fledged ship building and dockyards for the Navy. In 1527, upon the completion of a set of defensive stone forts at Portsmouth, King Henry VIII commissioned the third dockyards of his Navy and its new official home at Portsmouth; and

(iii) In 1540, upon the execution of Lord Admiral and Baron Cromwell Thomas Morosini by Henry VIII, Venetian noble Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” meaning “Red God” or “the Red One” was appointed Lord Admiral and 1st Earl of Bedford. Contrary to deliberately false history, Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” remained Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII in 1547; and

(iv) Assisted by Venetian intelligence and strategy, in 1545 England under Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” successfully defeated a massive French invasion fleet of over 30,000 soldiers and 200 ships. The French suffered heavy losses against the English Navy carracks and retreated. However, the English lost the Saint Mary (Mary Rose). The claim that John Dudley a militia land general was both Lord Admiral at the time and fully knowledgeable in Venetian maritime strategy is an absurd untruth; and

(v) Contrary to deliberate false history, upon the death of King Henry in 1547, John Dudley, Earl of Northumberland did not become Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII and the reign of young King Edward (1547-1553). In protest, the Venetians withdrew support and master craftsman and the dockyards fell into disrepair. Upon the death of young King Edward in 1553, John Dudley himself was captured and executed as a traitor. However, on Mary (1553-1558) succeeding to the throne, her husband Philip II of Spain was instrumental in ensuring that the Queen disbanded the English Navy, closed the dockyards and ordered the remaining ships of the fleet to be burnt at their moorings. By 1554, England was without a single ship of war, or Admiral, or Navy; and

(vi) Again contrary to deliberate false history, the next Lord Admiral of England was Francesco Orsini (Russo or Russell), 2nd Earl of Bedford, also famously known as Francis “the Draupon” (Drake) who was appointed in 1559 following Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) assuming the throne with the commission to re-establish the Navy. Lord Admiral Francesco “the Draupon” (Drake) first reopened Deptford Dockyards. New “strategic” dockyards and ship building was commissioned at Chatham on the River Medway in Kent and at Plymouth on the River Plym in Devon by 1560, followed by the reopening of Woolwich and Portsmouth Dockyards.

(vii) Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) was responsible from 1558 for commissioning of the historic mass production of a new type of ship called an English Galleon being a small (100 ft), lightweight (around 300 ton), well armed (20 to 24 guns), relatively fast (10 knots) and highly maneuverable vessel. The new flag ship of the new English Navy was the first privateer vessel in Western Roman history known as the Pelican or also known as the Gild en Hindre meaning “to seize and plunder (hinder)”; and

(viii) In 1562 Giovanni Farnese “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) was awarded the first form of “Letters of Marque” by Queen Elizabeth I as the first Vice-Admiral and privateer. By 1563, Vice-Admiral Hawkins succeeded in capturing Spanish slave ships in the Caribbean and trading the proceeds. In 1564, Queen Elizabeth I personally funded a second “pirate” expedition, with huge profits. Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) accompanied Giovanni “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) on his third pirate voyage as the English navy and narrowly escaped capture; and

(ix) By 1572, Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) with the new English Galleons of the Pelican and Swan successfully captured and plundered as “legal pirates” (privateers) a number of Spanish and French slave and treasure ships to become the most successful “legal pirate of the era, resulting in phenomenal wealth returning to England; and

(x) Both Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) and Giovanni Ghisleri “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) were instrumental in firstly the delay of the Spanish invasion of England in 1587 and then its destruction in 1588 by deliberately using booby trapping the old captured Spanish, Portuguese and French galleons as if Spanish ships and then setting them on fire, causing them to explode within close proximity of the main Spanish ships moored at Calais in France against a major storm. The remaining Spanish ships escaped into the open sea and were then blown off course, with some survivors landing in Ireland; and

(xi) The primary use of the English Navy as a pirate force was dramatically reduced upon James I of England (1603-1625) becoming King. The end to the Anglo-Spanish War by Peace Treaty in 1604 effectively ended the “legal piracy” of the English Navy and saw its gradual decline until the official and effective revival of the English “pirate” Navy from 1660 under Charles II; and

(xii) In 1706, the Act of Union by Queen Anne (1702- 1714) between England and Scotland saw the formal creation of one Royal Navy combining Scottish and English ships under the first laws of Admiralty and the first Lord High Admiral being Queen Anne herself; and

(xiii) In 1710, the office of Lord High Admiral was transferred to a Board of Privy Counselors known collectively as the Lords of the Admiralty comprising of five political Lords of Admiralty rated in status from the “first” Lord to the “fifth” Lord then supported by secretaries and assistants mirrored by five military lords of Admiralty known as “Sea Lords”; and

(xiv) After 1801, the position of Lords of Admiralty were depreciated against the control of the Bank of England to being Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty and agents of the Bank, rather than de jure positions.

Canon 6808 (link)
The first laws of Admiralty were not properly codified until the middle of the 17th Century, focusing equally on the discipline and maintenance of duty of Navy officers and Navy personnel as well as the operation of courts of admiralty and capture and management of property:

(i) The first laws of Admiralty were introduced under Charles II through 13 Car c.9 (1661) which for the first time in history expressed clearly the through thirty six articles the rules and conduct of Navy personnel, the operation of courts of admiralty and capture and management of property; and

(ii) In 1706, the Act of Union by Queen Anne (1702- 1714) between England and Scotland saw the formal creation of one Royal Navy combining Scottish and English ships under the first laws of Admiralty and the first Lord High Admiral being Queen Anne herself. In 1707, through 6 Anne c 37, the concept of admiralty law operating at time of war, the commissioning of privateers and the sharing of captured prizes were formalized with the conversion of the plantations of America as centers of pirate and privateer activity; and

(iii) In 1719, King George I introduced a new concept within Admiralty Law through 6 Geo. I. c.19 whereby those persons in “sea service” who committed crimes mentioned under 13 Car c.9 (1661) upon the shore in foreign parts were to be tried and punished as if they had been committed on the “main sea”. This was the first application of Admiralty Law on the land, in defiance of its alleged original purpose; and

(iv) In 1740, King George II introduced through 13 Geo. II. c. 4 in Article II the concept of three commissioners being required to administer a properly constituted Admiralty court. The Act also introduced for the first time in legal history the concept that owners of ships taking commissions of letters of marque were to provide bail and security. Furthermore, in Article III, the requirement for security to prosecute a case in Admiralty was introduced making the entire administration of admiralty courts commercial; and

(v) In 1749, George II through 22 Geo. II c.33 introduced a modified Admiralty Law and modified thirty six articles of the Code of Admiralty , repealing the 1661 act of Charles II as well as 1919 Act. Most importantly, the revisions to Admiralty Law made clear that those administering it were to be officers under fiduciary obligations through formal oath and that no agent or privateer was to hold any position of authority or conduct proceedings within an admiralty court. Furthermore, the act made clear that a valid court of Admiralty for court-martial only existed when three commissioners were duly sworn and present; and

(vi) In 1793, King George III through 33 Geo.III. c.66. significantly altered and refined Admiralty Law to make clear the taking of prizes by the admiralty courts and officers of the Crown during war as well as the procedural details of the issuing and administration of Letters of Marque. The act also reinforced the principles of those accused or “captured” requiring to provide security or “bail” in order to retrieve use of any goods seized as a prize. Under Article XIV it made clear the need to make surety under oath to obtain a valid Letter of Marque. Article XXXIV made clear the absolute forbiddance of officers of the court of Admiralty acting as an agent, or advocate or proctor in the same matter before the court. Article LXX reiterated the requirement of three or more Commissioners to present to hear and adjudicate a valid case in Admiralty, while Article LXXI permitted individual commissioner or justice of the peace to gather and hear evidence, but not to rule. Article XXXIII made clear the independence of the officers and judiciary of Admiralty from having any interest whatsoever in prizes or acting as privateers or possess letters of marquee namely “ That no Judge, Register, or Deputy Register, Marshall, or Deputy Marshall, or any other Officer whomsoever, of or belonging to any Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty in Great Britain, or in any of his Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in America, or in any other of his Majesty’s Dominions, nor any Person or Persons practicing either as Advocate, Proctor or otherwise, in any such Court or Courts, shall be concerned or interested, directly or indirectly, as Owner, Part Owner, Sharer, Adventurer, in any private Ship or Ships, or Vessel or Vessels of War whatsoever, having any Commission or Commissions, or Letter of Marque as aforesaid; and in any case such Judge, Register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Office, Advocate, or Proctor whatsoever, shall, notwithstanding this Act, be directly or indirectly concerned or interested as aforesaid, such Judge, register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Officer respectively, shall for every such Offence (being thereof lawfully convicted in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record in Great Britain or at any General Session of the Peace in any of his Majesty’s Colonies in America) absolutely forfeit his Office and Employment in and belonging to any such Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty, of what Kind or Nature so ever such Office and Employment may be”; and

(vii) In 1797, King George III through 38 Geo. III. c.38 confirmed that subjects of the United States were permitted to appeal in chancery from sentences of vice-admiralty courts confirming not only the continuing function of the estates of the United States as the plantations and property of Great Britain, but the course of potential remedy against adverse action of the vice-admiralty courts; and

(viii) In 1801, whilst hostilities with France continued, the prize (Admiralty) courts of the West Indies and America were reorganized through 41. Geo. III. c. 96 so that Admiralty Law would continue in light of possible further conflicts, independent of the hostilities at the time. Most significantly, the act reinforced the absolute division between officers of the courts and agents under letters of marque whereby one could not hold a position in such a manner. Furthermore, that judges of Admiralty were absolutely forbidden to be concerned with the care of any property of estates, namely in clause XVII “ And it be further enacted, That no person during the time he shall hold the office of judge of any of he said courts, shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, or for his benefit, act as agent for any prizes that may be captured from the enemy, or shall have any share or interest directly or indirectly in any privateer or letter of marquee, or shall be anywise concerned in the care, management, or superintendence of any estates in any island in the West Indies or on the continent of America”; and

(ix) In 1801, through 41. Geo. III. c. 76 King George III approved the extension of the system of Letters of Marque to permit the rules of their issue and application of their issue to be widened and applied as commissioners saw fit, providing within the general bounds of the act. This coincided with the dramatic extension of the use of Letters of Marque in the American plantations under the government of the United States corporation to all branches of its government as approved by Congress; and

(x) In 1806, through 46. Geo. III. c. 54 King George III reinforced clear the requirement of three or more duly appointed commissioners in order to constitute a valid Admiralty Court throughout all dominions whether it be a court-martial or determination of prize; and

(xi) In 1810, an Act was passed being 50 Geo. III. c. 118 regulating the office of registrars of Admiralty Prize Courts whereby the deduction of expenses from any “fees, dues, perquisites, emoluments or profits” and incident to the duties of offices was confirmed as lawful providing the remainder was carried to an account of the Consolidated Fund controlled by the Bank of England. This confirmed the admiralty courts as now purely organized “pseudo-legal” commercial agencies and not under any pretence of justice; and

(xii) In 1813, an Act was passed being 53 Geo. III. c. 151 regulating the financial handling of monies, bills of exchange and various government securities associated with Admiralty Courts including procedures and the obligation to deposit and report funds to the Bank of England and for the Admiralty Courts to effectively act as an agency and branch of the Bank in the management of all associated securities; and

(xiii) In 1816, through an extraordinary act 56 Geo.III. c.82 the judicial acts of surrogates of vice-admiralty courts appointed to act as judges of such courts during vacancies in those offices by the said judges or by the governors of the plantations and colonies in which such courts are were rendered valid, thus permitting for the first time agents to act in such capacity through Admiralty (in direct defiance of previous Admiralty law) providing such judicial offices were considered vacant; and

(xiv) In 1822, through 3 Geo. IV c.19, the minimum number of commissioners needed to convene a proper Admiralty Court and execute valid judicial acts was reduced from three to two where the number of commissioners in a particular court jurisdiction was less than six. The most noticeable effect of this act is the present day magistrates courts in Admiralty, compared to the District and Supreme Courts where the existence of six or more justices require a quorum of three or more for a valid Admiralty Court to be convened; and

(xv) In 1823, through 4 Geo. IV. c. 41 all “vessels” were required to be registered under admiralty to encourage “shipping” and “navigation” as euphemisms for trade. The act made clear that no “vessel” may enjoy privileges unless registered.

(xvi) In 1827 through 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c.65 reinforced the powers of two commissioners in signing and official act under admiralty law, changing also the structure of the board of Lord High Admiral to a council; and

(xvii) In 1832 through 2 Will. IV c.40 Admiralty Law was further refined with the commercial administration of the Navy and the extension of Admiralty Courts over the full range of fiduciary duties of affairs of officers, marines and seaman, in particular the determination of probate and will and testaments and the adjudication of estate matters of as if land courts- a significant historic event; and

(xviii) The creation of people into “vessels” by statute was created with Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1836 (c. 86) whereby all births were to be registered and sent to a General Registry Office. The key word “Birth” directly implies a vessel. To ensure admiralty was connected to the procedures of “births, deaths and marriages”, several clauses made clear the connection such as XXI. Being Registry of children born at sea. In later decades, the introduction of “health acts” that required “births in hospitals” meant that by the beginning of the 20th century almost 99% of infants were born at sea by virtue of being born on board a british vessel being a hospital; and

(xix) In 1837, through the Transfer to Admiralty of Postal Contracts Act (1837), Admiralty Courts were granted all the previous powers of the Postmaster General in respect to all Contracts, Bonds and other Securities delivered by packet service, thus dramatically weakening the power and authority of the Postmaster General in preference of the Vice-Admiralty; and

(xx) The Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 made clear the extraordinary power and transition of admiralty to the land by permitting a claimed crime on the “high seas” to then be transferred to a specific location on land and to be treated in law as if it had occurred on the land. Thus, providing the legal argument that the original crime occurred “on the high seas”, the matter could be heard by an admiralty court as if a matter of common law on the land. This act help precipitate the creation of the absurdity of placing the “high water marks” of various states and counties on the highest peaks so that “all alleged crimes” were committed on the “high seas” and thus subject to admiralty. The accompany rules of “summary justice” were introduced later under Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848); and

(xxi) In 1845, by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 the registration of “vessels” was further refined to identify them as British vessels. The act reinforced in Article II that no “ship” or “vessel” as euphemisms for companies and bodies may be entitled to any privileges of a “british-registered ship” unless registered; and

(xxii) The application of admiralty law more widely to criminal matters greatly expanded with theAct 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848) whereby the traditional rules of common law such as original writs and right of reply and right to jury appeared to be “suspended” in preference to a faster, less rigorous form of justice or “summary justice” (itself an oxymoron). This act followed the act ofAdmiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 (1844) that placed common law and all previous statute law in the administration of justice in the lowers courts with the operation of admiralty law; and

(xxiii) In 1854, the act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 78 was significant in introducing for the first time the use of stamps on legal documents in admiralty – the first time stamps were required on legal documents – in lieu of small fees for lodgment. This act is the origin of the use of stamps on such documents and enabled judges, clerks and courts of admiralty to then recoup such fees from the Consolidated Fund, also rendering it no longer necessary to publish such legal notices in the London Gazette as the cancelled stamp denoted the proper “delivery” as well as “publication” and “public notice” of the legal instrument. This  act complimented one of the most important acts of admiralty and commerce in Western-Roman law being 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 Merchant Shipping Act (1854) arguably one of the largest statutes ever created in English history prior to the 20th Century; and

(xxiv) In 1859, through the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 6 Act, for the first time in history, Serjeants, Barristers-At-Law, Attorneys and Solictors were granted permission to practice in Admiralty Courts, thus moving closer to admiralty courts being full mirrors of land courts; and

(xxv) In 1863, first through 26 & 27 Vict. c.24, the former “back door” through 56 Geo.III. c.82whereby surrogates as agents could also act in the vacant roles of offices was clarified. For example, under article 4, where the office of a judge of admiralty court is vacant, the Chief Justice or Principal Judicial Officer becomes the ex officio Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court until notification is received and one is appointed to that vacant office. This act further reinforced the technique and explanation for why some jurisdictions from 1863 failed to duly appointed officers in the manner prescribed. Through 26 & 27 Vict. c.116 the concept of agents for prizes was reinforced with clear identification in clause 10 that no person holding officer under the crown may act as an agent; and

(xxvi) In 1864 and then in 1865, further major changes to Admiralty law were instituted, whereby the new Naval Prize Act 1864 was instituted and previous prize acts were appeared to be repealed, but only if their effects were no longer in operation. Thus, for the first time, a major historic section of Admiralty law was removed from the public record and made secret via repeal, such as acts pertaining to America and the United States, which remained technically still in operation because of ongoing declarations of war; and

(xxvii) The Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act 1867 c. 114 while exclusively for the jurisdiction of Ireland is nonetheless instructive as broader knowledge of admiralty in demonstrating the limited rights of admiralty to those accused and its summary form and function in one act; and

(xxviii) The completion of admiralty law replacing common law within the courts to “mimick” as pseudo law that believed as common law was largely completed with the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 c. 71 which was followed up by Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 c. 49 that established the framework of the modern admiralty courts in operation throughout the Western-Roman law operating pseudo-legal form of admiralty, masquerading as common law; and

(xxix) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1867 include, Admiralty Suits Act 1868 c. 78, , Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Amendment Act 1876 c. 28, Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act 1878 c. 53 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 c. 27


As you can see by these canons, the size and breath of admiralty is extraordinary.  It is hoped this information will assist those facing the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds who persistently refuse to follow their own rules, their own laws and remain obsessed in destroying any last vestige of rule of law.

None found.
This entry was posted in Common Law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.