David Merrill
10-02-17, 09:58 AM
The Captain goes down with the ship!
I always thought that was kind of harsh. The doctrine was mitigated by bottomry. Insurance makes it more the Captain's duty to save the crew and get to work making the claim to restore the owner of the cargo for his loss.
Lately I got to thinking how much more economical the "New Technology" of garnishment might be if the trial court was already opened in admiralty. For a good example, somebody assaults somebody on a commercial airline:
4950
Now simply find the senior "justice" of whatever Circuit (Court of Appeals) is in fraud, by having a deviant oath of office:
4952
There is more to this. A very clever attorney overrides the FOIA Exemption as Private Attorney General. No OMB# means that the Congress has budgeted no bonding for this "judicial officer":
4953
I am simply saying that it is much more disconcerting for a Mason to be confronted with his blood oath. If he opens his mouth providing the Key to the CODE, he has sworn consent to be tortured to death.
4954
So why pussyfoot around. George WASHINGTON added, "So help me God." ad lib to the first Inaugural Oath and it was added to the 1789 oaths for all federal judges - but in upper and lower case plain English. By finding the suitor is already in admiralty, this saves resorting to the 'Saving to Suitors' Clause' and it saves steps enforcing Rule B(1)(C):
If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
The Garnishment would of course be against the known wealthy President responsible for appointing the "Justice". I have heard that TRUMP is obviously a Mason...
Continued...
I always thought that was kind of harsh. The doctrine was mitigated by bottomry. Insurance makes it more the Captain's duty to save the crew and get to work making the claim to restore the owner of the cargo for his loss.
Lately I got to thinking how much more economical the "New Technology" of garnishment might be if the trial court was already opened in admiralty. For a good example, somebody assaults somebody on a commercial airline:
4950
Now simply find the senior "justice" of whatever Circuit (Court of Appeals) is in fraud, by having a deviant oath of office:
4952
There is more to this. A very clever attorney overrides the FOIA Exemption as Private Attorney General. No OMB# means that the Congress has budgeted no bonding for this "judicial officer":
4953
I am simply saying that it is much more disconcerting for a Mason to be confronted with his blood oath. If he opens his mouth providing the Key to the CODE, he has sworn consent to be tortured to death.
4954
So why pussyfoot around. George WASHINGTON added, "So help me God." ad lib to the first Inaugural Oath and it was added to the 1789 oaths for all federal judges - but in upper and lower case plain English. By finding the suitor is already in admiralty, this saves resorting to the 'Saving to Suitors' Clause' and it saves steps enforcing Rule B(1)(C):
If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
The Garnishment would of course be against the known wealthy President responsible for appointing the "Justice". I have heard that TRUMP is obviously a Mason...
Continued...