Comment: It’s not hearsay.

(See in situ)


It’s not hearsay.

There is a case in the Asheville Division of North Carolina, U.S. v 3039.375 Pounds of Copper, et al., case number 1:08cv230 also generally known as the Liberty Dollar case. It is a civil forfeiture action on the land.

The magistrate, in his order filed 08/21/2008, “... advised that while this court applies the common law in a number of civil diversity cases, common law pleading has been supplanted in civil forfeiture actions by both federal statutes and rules. (cites two 1990 Circuit Court cases). Specifically, this action was brought by the United States under 18, United States Code, Sections 98& 492, with the procedures mandated by Section 983 of that title, which require the parties and the court to follow not only the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims.

He continues, ... Put another way, the type of relief Mr. ****** seeks through detinue and delivery at common law must now be sought through claim and answer. Rule G(5)(a), of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims, specifies the requirements for the filing of an Answer to the Amended Complaint.

Although we know that “Admiralty” in not a “secret” jurisdiction, the founders sought to keep from extending it to the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county. This, I believe most of the people on this website feel is wrong, and Ron Paul even said that the seizure was wrong.

Detinue is a common law action for wrongful detainer. How and why was the common law supplanted to allow the Admiralty courts jurisdiction to extend to cases arising merely in the county?

http://www.powerpolitics.com
“If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.”