The law of nations may be considered of three kinds, to wit: general, conventional or customary. The first is universal, or established by the general consent of mankind, and binds all nations. The second is founded on express consent, and is not universal, and only binds those nations who have assented to it. The third is founded on tacit consent; and is only obligatory on those nations who have adopted it". Ware, Administrator of Jones v. Hylton, et al (1796)
Thus, it is clear that: 1. The United States Constitution is an ordinance (or statute) within the Law of Nations. 2. The various State constitutions are ordinances (or statutes) within the United States Constitution, and are a part and parcel of the law of Nations. 3. "Public policy" is within the jurisdiction of the law of Nations.
In the Seneca Case, decided by a court of appeals in Pennsylvania in 1829; the court said: "The jurisdiction of the district court, under the 9th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat.76), embraces all cases of maritime nature, whether they be particularly of admiralty cognizance or not; and such jurisdiction, and the law regulating its exercise, are to be sought for in the General Maritime Laws of Nations, and are not confined to that of England, or any other particular maritime nation.
So we see that our Admiralty and Maritime courts are not only bound by the Maritime Laws of this country, or England, but are bound by the General Maritime Laws of all nations.
Now, let's look into some of those General Maritime Laws dealing with the subject matter brought into evidence in this case. From the Statutes at Large from the 15th to the 20th year of King George II, we find the following:
"The from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and forty six, no assurance or assurances shall be made -- interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy, or by way of gaming or wagering, ...and that every assurance shall be null and void to all intents and purposes."
The reason for this enactment was stated to be: "Whereas, it has been found by experience that the making of assurances, interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy, hath been productive of many pernicious practices, ... and by introducing a mischievous kind of gaming or wagering, under the pretence of ... the institution and laudable design of making assurances, hath been perverted; and that which was intended for the encouragement of trade and navigation, has in many instances, become hurtful, and destructive to the same:" Here we have a clear and distinct statement that interest or no interest, insurance policies, and gaming and wagering, are absolutely against the "public policy" of nations -- and are, therefore, void.
1. No insurance to be made on lives, etc., by persons having no interest, etc.-- From and after the passing of this Act no insurance shall be made by any person or persons, politick or corporate, on the life or lives of any person or persons, or on any other event or events whatsoever, wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy or policies shall be made, shall have no interest, or by way of gaming or wagering; and that every assurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. NOTE: At Common Law, wager policies were legal contracts.
p1. Marine Insurance Defined. - A contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in a manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against maritime losses, that is to say, the losses incident to maritime adventure."
4. Avoidance of wagering or gaming contracts. (1) Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void. (2) A contract of marine insurance is deemed to be a gaming or wagering contract - (a) where the assured has not an insurable interest as defined by the Act, and the contract is entered into with no expectation of acquiring such an interest;(b)or, where the or no interest,' or `without further proof of interest than the policy itself,' ...or subject to any other like term."
5. Insurable Interest Defined. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person has an insurable interest who is interested in a maritime adventure. (2) In particular a person is interested in a maritime adventure where he stands in any legal or equitable relation to the adventure or to any insurable property at risk therein, in consequence of which he may benefit by the safety or due arrival of insurable property, or may be prejudiced by its loss, or damage thereto,or by the detention thereof, or may incur liability in respect thereof."
#17 ... A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, ...NOTE: If this good faith be not observed by either party, there being any concealment or non-disclosure of a material particular, the contract may be avoided by the injured party;" #41 ...Warranty of Legality. -- There is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner... NOTE: It seems that the assured cannot hold the insurer to a waiver of illegality for ... only legal adventures can be insured."
1. Prohibition of gambling or loss by maritime perils. (1) If - (a) Any person effects a contract of maritime insurance without having any bonafide interest, direct or indirect, ... or a bonafide expectation of acquiring such an interest; ... the contract shall be deemed to be a contract by way of gambling on loss by maritime perils ...
And, from "An Essay on Maritime Loans from the French" of M. Balthazard Marie Emerigon, we find: "The Lender (of a Maritime Loan) was not prohibited from demanding pledges and hypothecations as an additional security; providing it was not a pretext for exacting maritime interest after the sea risk should be at an end." "It is essential to this contract that there be a risk, and that the risk be incurred by the lender ... The stipulation, interest or no interest is a real wager ... This is not permitted among us ..." "If the contract was void in its commencement, the maritime interest is not chargeable, because no maritime dangers were borne by the lender." "Difference between contracts of bottomry and those of Loan, Partnership and insurance.
Bottomry is different from the contract of loan because: 1. The peril of money, simply lent, concerns the borrower: whereas money lent at bottomry is at the risk of the lender. 2. In a simple loan, interest is due by positive stipulation only; whereas, maritime interest is implied in the contract itself. 3. In a simple loan, the interest, among merchants, could not exceed the rate fixed by the Prince, or, at most the custom of the country; whereas, bottomry may carry any interest." " ... Maritime interest is not subject to the limits of ordinary legal interest, but that it may be regulated by the degree of danger to which the lender exposes or believes he exposes his money." "The contract of maritime loan approaches more nearly to that of Insurance. There is a strong analogy between them. In their effects they are construed on the same principles. In the one contract, the lender bears the sea risks, in the other, the underwriter. In the one, the maritime interest is the price of the peril; and this term corresponds with the premium which is paid in the other."
From the Marine Insurance Act of 1906. Previously referred to: #82. ... Enforcement of return. - Where the premium or a proportionate part thereof is, by this Act, declared to be returnable, - (a) If already paid, it may be recovered by the assured from the insurer; and (b) If unpaid, it may be retained by the assured or his agent." #84. ... Return for failure of consideration.(1) Where the consideration for the payment of the premium totally fails, and there has been no fraud or illegality on the part of the assured or his agents, the premium is thereupon returnable to the assured ... (3) In particular - (a) Where the policy is void, or is voided by the insurer as from the commencement of the risk, the premium is returnable provided that there has been no fraud or illegality on the part of the assured;"
So you see, that pursuant to the Positive Law of the Law of Nations, if there has been no fraud or illegality on your part -- and you have marshalled your facts to prove that the Federal Reserve contract is a wagering policy, you can void the contract and are entitled to a refund of all premiums paid.
And, in the California Insurance Code, we find: SEC.1900. Duty to Disclose In marine insurance each party is bound to communicate, in addition to what is required in the case of other insurance: (a) All the information which he possesses and which is material to the risk, except such as is exempt from such communication in the case of other insurance. (b) The exact and whole truth in relation to all matters that he represents or, upon inquiry assumes to disclose.
Now, let's consider the public policy as stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution and compare this statement of public policy to the public policy of the Positive Law of the Law of Nations dealing with wagering policies, and to the so-called public policy of the Federal Reserve Act and HJR-192!
The Preamble to the United States Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This Preamble is a statement of "Public policy" under the "conventional"
branch of the Law of Nations. Since wagering policies, interest or no interest
insurance policies, and maritime loans at no risk to the lender are forbidden
under the public policy of the Positive Law of Nations -- reason and logic
dictates that the, so-called, public policy of the Federal Reserve Act
and HJR-192 are not public policy, as alleged by Congress, and
Congress, therefore, had no authority and jurisdiction to enact the Federal Reserve Act, or HJR-192, and it logically and reasonably follows that these acts are a nullity, ab initio. Congress is granted the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations in Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution; and, therefore, has the dutyto do so.
We submit that the law and the facts presented here today establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Congress has authorized and implemented a wagering policy and sanctioned crimes and offenses perpetrated and committed against the people of the United States by the Federal ReserveBoard and its class A stockholders.
Consequently, it also follows that no State assembly or legislature had the authority and jurisdiction to hypothecate the State's treasuries, land and people as security to the Federal Reserve.
Our State courts are operating in Admiralty jurisdiction, for the most part. (Remember the McCarren Act which declared that the continued regulation and taxation of insurance by the states was in the public interest? --- and that Judge Friendly said that, as a result of the Erie R.R. decision, the State courts must conform to Federal decisions in areas where Congress has manifested an intent to that end? --- and that the Erie R.R. decision was a result, and implementation of, the "Public policy" stated in HJR-192???)
END PART TWELVE
Proceed To PART THIRTEEN (Last)
BY: ELDON G. WARMAN
© DetaxCanada 1999 - 2011