“You may kiss goodbye to your freedom.”

Its so bad we now look at Russia as the good guy


We are 25th on the list for Financial freedom…
Singapore is #1


Given the size & power of “ IVAN” , we must now and ever be Vigilant.


Bigger traitors running our country into the shitter faster than any Ivan.or chinamen.


Take your country back, this is the blueprint.


I have seen that I aint sure how it works


pretty sure a lot of arm waving and bluster after the fact


They throw out a lot of gorgon that isnt well known.
Because we live under 3 legal systems, and most of you only know one. maritime.


who’s Maritime Law?
and under who’s jurisdiction?
As I recall, pretty well every Sovereign Country that has access to a navigable waterway has it’s own Maritime Law, so kindly show me any statutes to support this argument.
Hint unless you are a vessel or owner of said, operating on a navigable waterway governed by said Sovereign State, the statutes have no bearing on said citizen of said sovereign state.


If I may, US of course, don’t know for you

There’s your

Merger of law and equity. …While there has been a merger of law and equity for procedural purposes, substantive principles of equity still govern.

Law and equity merged

In short

Equity. Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law…

Common law is procedural or judge made law, not particularly fair, remember justice is blind, so it uses sound to judge for depth, that’s how navigation is done


BS you say?

please note two words


artificial contrivance

And if you can’t see it you cant see it, how do you see it if its artificial?

If you find this difficult but want to see it ask yourself, why is an artificial contrivance needed on water?


I love how you only cherry pick the pie instead of serving it whole

§3. “Vessel” as including all means of water transportation

The word “vessel” includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633 .)

a pieces of wood constructed into a raft or a inner tube would meet the definition, where as a simple log floating and conveying wouldn’t


fair to say, except also what I asked of you

And if you also note

you did the same when you highlighted :arrow_up:

Now, I’ll ask you to note another term

Don’t beat yourself if you can’t see it, but not seeing it doesn’t mean you should beat those who may, suit yourself, believe, don’t, like Ozzy, don’t

Nobody ever told me, I found out for myself
You gotta believe in foolish miracles
It’s not how you play the game, it’s if you win or lose
You can choose, don’t confuse
Win or lose, it’s up to you


Here’s another example of my doing so, Blacks 6th

Maritime law…
Substantively, in the United States, it is federal law, and jurisdiction to administer it is vested in the federal courts, though not to the entire exclusion of the courts of the states.


and there it is.
citing maritime law for something that is not under maritime jurisdiction is no different than me serving you for contravening a foreign law and expecting your judiciary to provide me with relief.


You as I see it are a bit confused

That part is correct, there it is very explicit IMO,

Substantively, in the United States, it is federal law, and jurisdiction to administer it is vested in the federal courts

See FRCP 2 one form one action

so yes it appears

And just because it is federal doesn’t mean state courts have to exclude it

However, I have been told in state court more than once when applying FRCP that I was not in a federal court despite the rules of “civil” procedure they dictate, civil meaning state

State courts have local rules that larelgy mimic federal rules so you need to cite those rules

In that sense

you are correct

But these are not things to argue, such as gold fringe and CAPITAL letters are not silver bullets, they’re considered without merit and frivolous arguments

But, gold fringe is not allowed per US code


So is it illegal or unlawful neither or both?

Are CAPITAL letters a trademark?

Does any of this matter?

I love to search/research but to tell you that you must believe, not really my thing, you can believe what you like :hugs:


@ Robert everything you are arguing about is pertaining to this and appears to agree and support my arguements.


I believe I made it clear I was not arguing, I was answering

I wasn’t aware you were arguing and thought you were asking something fun to discuss, seems I was no help, but its ok, I posted a couple fun videos :sunglasses:


arguing as in " give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view."
nothing more
and why you argue your case in court


No, not to offer an alternative?

I see you are again correct and asked for as I offered

So exciting news, I offered you were right at least twice :hugs:

I had fun and you got despite not accepting it (correct) supporting views for an argument


I think this is a fair assumption, as its US Code, part of a legal system we should be able to either include it as fair or rule it out, lets try, ready?

We’ll use legal definitions, complete from Blacks Sixth

artificial contrivance

Artificial. As opposed to “natural”, means created or produced by man. California Casualty Indemnity Ex­change v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 13 Cal.2d 529, 90 P.2d 289. Created by art, or by law; existing only by force of or in contemplation of law. Humanly contrived. A will or contract is described as “artificially” drawn if it is couched in apt and technical phrases and exhibits a scientific arrangement.

So the log is not included, a log raft maybe as we have “Created by art”, its a little odd as typically a watercraft with no motorized propulsion doesn’t require any registration tag or fees, so a vessel, but with no commercial fee’s associated, your canoe you can just put in the water and paddle.

BUT… we also have “or by law”, don’t overlook the “or” and don’t dismiss now we have “law” creating a vessel, how does that actually occur???

How does law create a vessel that goes in the water, is “law” the name of company, like Donzi?

We already have “produced by man”, now we have created by law, which is a legal fiction, isn’t that interesting?

The law creates a vessel.

Moving on

Contrivance. Any device which has been arranged generally to deceive. An instrument or article designed to accomplish a specific objective and made by use of measure of ingenuity.

If that doesn’t sound alarm bells consider the term in Black Law Sixth is only found 19 times, lets examine a few of them

Artifice / art;)f;)s/. An ingenius contrivance or device of some kind, and, when used in a bad sense, it corresponds with trick or fraud. It implies craftiness and deceit, and
imports some element of moral obliquity. See also Scheme or artifice to defraud; Sham.

Note this one has ingenious, the same as ingenuity, I won’t personally add rabbit trails but ask what you know about your adversary?

Ohh hell I can’t help but drop a pellet

Next we have chance which reads “The opposite of intention, design, or contrivance”

Design. To form plan or scheme of, conceive and arrange in mind, originate mentally, plan out, contrive .

(I abbreviated that one its longer but much the same)

Device. An invention or contrivance; any result of design, as in the phrase “gambling device,” which means a machine or contrivance of any kind for the playing of an unlawful game of chance or hazard.


Dolus In the civil law, guile; deceitfulness; malicious fraud. A fraudulent address or trick used to deceive some one; a fraud. Any subtle contrivance by words or acts with a design to circumvent.

abbreviated again, I think the idea is clear, contrivance is a term like conspiracy, at least in the legal sense, it only refers to one thing as I see and building a flotation device is not it.

So, is 1 USC 3: “Vessel” as including all means of water transportation a smoking gun?

No, never will be, it still requires believing as seeing

But what about the water transportation, can we rule out anything by that?

Navigable waters. Those waters which afford a channel for useful commerce.

Abbreviated but that is the first paragraph period included.

The next paragraph is

Any body of water, navigable in fact, which by itself or by uniting with other waters forms a continuous highway over which commerce may be carried on with other states or countries.

by itself or … there’s that or again

A water is “navigable,” for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, provided that it is used or susceptible of being used as an artery of commerce.

so “continuous highway over which commerce” and “susceptible of being used as an artery of commerce”

This is abbreviated

The term “highway,” as generally understood, does not have a restrictive or a static meaning, but it denotes ways laid out or constructed to accommodate modes of
travel and other related purposes that change as customs change and as technology develops, and the term “highway,” as it is generally understood, includes areas
other than and beyond the boundaries of the paved surface of a roadway. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, Mass., 352 N.E.2d 197, 201.

“does not have a restrictive or a static meaning”… and “that change as customs change”

Customs are particular laws, so a highway is not strictly defined and can change by custom

Does any of this change your opinion, certainly no, but I have work to do so will let this rest