Land Law (common law) & Martime Law (admiralty law) Differences

What is the difference between land law and maritime law. Common law requires the presence of a jury to make an impartial verdict. However, maritime law requires admiralty law courts to try maritime cases without the presence of a jury. In maritime law, it's common for shipping vessels to receive the status of legal persons. Maritime law used to apply only to American waters within the ebb and flow of the tide. However, it now covers any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. The Jones Act is a federal law that regulates maritime commerce in the United States. The Jones Act requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships that are built, owned, and operated by United States citizens or permanent residents. Maritime law, also known as admiralty law, is domestic. The law of the sea is international. The law of the sea is a body of laws, customs, and international agreements that apply to all nations. Today's general maritime law consists of the common forms, terms, rules, standards and practices of the maritime shipping industry using standard form bills of lading, charterparties, marine insurance policies and sales contracts are good examples of common forms and the accepted meaning of the terms. 

Let’s break this down. Common law is nation land law with people. Maritime law is international sea law with vessels. Land law governs with a jury while maritime law governs with maritime courts. Did you notice the phrase above in the gobblygook that said “In maritime law, it's common for shipping vessels to receive the status of legal persons”? This is the trick. A sovereign nationalist reverses common law of person to vessel. So in laymen’s terms, a vessel at sea is a person and a person on land is a vessel. If maritime law never referred to vessels as people, then sovereign nationalists couldn’t refer to themselves as vessels. This is why many win in court not because the judge is stupid about land law, but because the person represents themselves as a vessel confuses the judge. There is no evidence to support that we on land are indeed vessels. If there was, it is hidden. There is no evidence to support that we are under maritime law as the judge doesn’t rule under maritime law.

Those who produce victory in court using themselves as a sovereign vessel of the sea merely just wastes the courts time for offenses that are merely a few thousand dollars. The judge most likely thinks the accused representing themselves is crazy and it would cost more money to fight against his reasoning than it would be to dismiss the case altogether. I have watched many videos of sovereigns arguing in court. Not one judge admits the information told by the defendant about their rights were indeed right. They simply got tired of arguing with what they think is nonsense given the fact the judge isn’t qualified to judge maritime law in the first place. Here’s an example, it would be just a silly if a person was in maritime court arguing his vessel has the right to be recognized as an independent living being. The maritime court judge would be cinfused given the fact that the boat is made of wood and doesn’t even have a torso, arms, legs and a brain. The judge would weigh the cost factor of how much time this argument will cost the court versus dismissing the case.

However, this does not mean The United States of America is not living under maritime law. If it is, then the courts that we are arguing in our cities, counties, state and federal land are not the correct courts for such arguments. If you are a vessel lost at sea, you do not go to land courts. You need an international maritime court.  But the Judiciary Act of 1789, the U.S. Congress placed admiralty and maritime law under the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Parties may not contract out of admiralty jurisdiction and states may not infringe on admiralty jurisdiction, either judicially or legislatively. So, the sovereign has to go to federal court to argue their case. My point is, the system is corrupt and we can all agree to that. The system is designed to make money. It’s not designed to free us from taxation. You can be a sovereign, US citizen or both. But if you represent yourself as a vessel or boat, you need to know more than the average person including the judge and plaintiff you are arguing with. Picture this, a single mom of 8 kids whom works full time becomes a sovereign. She gets pulled over by the police and they search her vehicle for weapons and drugs. She gets a fine for speeding and a fine for refusing a breathalyzer. She has two choices. Hire an attorney that represents common law or argue herself via maritime law. Since she lives in corrupt land with corrupt court systems, she would do better arguing common law. That’s one scenario.

The other example is a man who owns 1,000 acres of land. The bureau of land management issued them an eviction notice for not paying property taxes and has a developer ready to turn it into a resort. The common law court has already been paid off and bribes were given. Maritime law and the straw man argument offers enough loopholes to drag the case to federal court where they are forced to judge under maritime practice. The man has a better chance kicking the state off his land by calling himself a boat living on his land which he calls cargo and argue the case of his rights to be a vessel on international waters carrying whatever cargo he wants and accuse the bureau of land management of piracy. To sum up, there is nothing wrong with becoming a sovereign. It depends on your situation and what you need to protect. As for the average citizen who rents and has credit card debt, it doesn’t make any logical sense to go in this direction other than to argue your way out of a DUI.