Submitted by Judge Three Rivers on
United States Supreme Court
AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, (1828)
Summary: That the Court which ordered this sale was properly a municipal Court, and a Court of a separate and distinct jurisdiction from the Courts of the United States, and as such, its acts are not to be reviewed in a foreign tribunal... The common law rule is, that when a Court acts within its powers, its acts are binding on all the world; but if beyond them, they are entirely void.
...by virtue of the decree of a certain Court (tribunal / jural assembly), consisting of a Notary and five Jurors, proceeding under an Act of the Governor and Legislative Council of Florida, passed the 4th of July, 1823... the establishment of this tribunal, therefore, however justice may be distributed in it, is no unwarrantable exercise of the legislative or judicial power vested in Florida. American Insurance Company v. Canter, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 511 511 (1828)
- Judge Three Rivers's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Could someone please break this down for me: what is meant here where it says "foreign tribunal"
frisbee101 The court ruling was made by one of the Courts of the United States, which is foreign to the court in Florida. The states each have sovereignty, or at least they did back in 1828, before the formation of the United States Inc, which occurred in 1871. Back in 1828, the Supreme Court still abided by The Constitution for the United States of America. But it has long been corrupted with pedophilia and bribery. However, that is changing with every justice that Trump appoints. Soon the republic will be restored. I will be writing more on this in the near future. I already posted a couple of article about the Zim bonds, which is the one financial instrument which have the biggest impact on the world economics.
In any case, a court from any other jurisdiction is foreign to any other court within a given jurisdiction. But, the verdict also mentioned common law. We have operated under admiralty law since the mid 1800s. I cite a common law case as well from California that states the law of the realm, in this case the United States of America is the common law. Under common law, judges are not allowed to make any decisions.
M. R. Hamilton
Mr Hamilton, very well explained, sir. So, if I may take this understanding of "inferior jurisdiction" a step further, when perhaps we might be "invited" to their Admiralty Courts: So then, would it also be correct to say that, the Admiralty Court is FOREIGN to the PEOPLE's sovereignty, (just as STATE is foreign to FEDERAL,) and so, would we make THIS our COUNTER-CLAIM, (whenever we might be invited to "contract" with them in their [inferior] admiralty courts,) right?
In other words, is our COUNTERCLAIM a sort of CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, so as to RE-ASSERT our "common-law jurisdiction" -- (in a court-of-record)? Would that be a fair assessment?
Yeah, that would be a fair assessment. The problem we have had is they compeltely ignore challenges to jurisdiciton in spite of all of the case law that says they have to prove it once challenge. However, that may be coming to an end after the Executive Order Trump just signed.
Read the executive order carefully. I will write an article about it on my next day off after I read it all the way through.
M. R. Hamilton