Defending in Court Against Maritime Jurisdiction Donald E. Pallett The average person, having read R.D.R.

's material [Contact R.D.R. directly. -ed] concerning status and the maritime jurisdiction of contracts, is in a quandry as to how he should proceed with putting the information into action. The statutes enforced under maritime jurisdiction are quite clear that once one is subject to a taxing or licensing statute, the courts of law will not interfere with the authorities empowered to enforce those statutes. The only appeal is through the system established to hear complaints involving the administration of those statutes, which of course volunteers one into the very jurisdiction he wishes to challenge. It is this writer's hope that the following thoughts on the subject will give the readers of this article a guideline on how this problem might be handled. First, one must have it straight in his mind as to just what area of law he is dealing with when he contests taxing and licensing statutes. It is not positive law which consists of those statutes enacted by the legislatures in pursuance to some authority or mandate granted in the United States or State Constitutions. It is instead maritime (contract) law, entered into voluntarily by private parties. The United States Constitution recognizes the right to create contracts by prohibiting any legislation interfering with the right to contract (Art. 1, Sec. 10), but once the contract has been created, its enforcement can come under the administrative control of the legislatures. When you applied for Social Security you signed a contract volunteering yourself into the Social Security program and assigning power of attorney, over your person, to the Social Security agency. On the strength of your Social Security participation you were then required to participate in driver's license and motor vehicle registration programs. The proof is in 42 USC 405(C)(i) which states: It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general

law

public assistance, drivers license, or motor vehicle registration

within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Secretary for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administration responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Secretary. As long as the contracts are allowed to remain in force, they will be binding. As you have volunteered to partake of a benefit you have incurred an obligation to specifically perform in some manner. The courts have ruled that to receive certain types of benefits and not pay for them is unjust enrichment. As these contracts were entered into voluntarily they can be terminated in the same manner. [See R.D.R. for their revocation program. -ed] By said revocations one regains his status as a private individual, enjoying that liberty guaranteed in the preamble of the United States Constitution. The argument for cause of revocation is misrepresentation as there was no statement of waiver of rights on either the Social Security or drivers license applications. One might also consider deceit and entrapment. There are elements of both of these in the way the programs were presented and implemented. When one is first challenged by government, concerning alleged violation of any contracts one has revoked, the first line of defense is to put the challenging party personally on constructive "NOTICE" in affidavit form, taking care to attach copies of all revocations that said party shall have full proof of one's status. Having been fully informed, by constructive notice, of non-liability, any action taken that causes damage will have been done willfully, knowingly and with malice aforethought, for which action there is no defense in a court of law.

Also to be entered in the constructive "NOTICE" is the information that one will be demanding a common law remedy under the saving to suitors clause. Title 28 USC states in part: Sec. 1333 Admiralty, maritime and prize cases. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of; -----!--!-----------------------------------------------------------------(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. The Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9 on page 88 states: ... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. Hone Ins. Co. v. North Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871). The Oregon Revised Statutes 71.1030 state: Supplementary general principles of law applicable. Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions. A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law, even though the case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. But one has to make the demand in his briefs to the court. Remember silence is consent to be tried under a maritime jurisdiction. Under the Local Rules for Federal Courts on Oregon Rule 1(b), FORM OF PAPERS TO BE FILED, it states in part: (b) In the space to the right of the center of the first page, opposite the caption of the case, there shall be placed: (1) the case number; (2) the nature of the action, such as admiralty, antitrust,contract, eminent domain, fraud, negligence, patent, securities;

The jurisdiction of the case must be identified before the case can proceed. If the judge takes judicial notice of the nature of the charge, without communication to the defendant, how can the defendant know in what terms he is to couch his defense? Be aware that there will probably be an attempt to do just this. Therefore there has to be entered, upon the record, a definite objection to going forward until the jurisdiction has been defined in no uncertain terms. An at law jurisdiction is imperative. Otherwise the case is lost in that court. Once the jurisdiction at law has been determined the defendant must demand that the original contract (not a copy) be brought foreward. This could be most interesting. In a court at law the original contract must be entered as evidence (in maritime a copy will suffice). The writer has heard that the original Social Security applications have been destroyed and only copies on film now exist. If this is true the Social Security contract could no longer be valid and therefore no case exist. But should the original be brought into evidence one now has the proper at law jurisdiction he requires to argue misrepresentation, etc., as there was no statement of waiver of rights upon the application. What has been done with the original drivers license applications also needs to be discovered.

[Reprinted from `BEHOLD!', Oct. 1986]