Travels with Neptune and
Poseidon
(Revised
11-28-2010)
One of my elective courses in law school was
admiralty, and my professor was Admiral Hughes, an old Navy man
with a great sense of humor and many interesting and entertaining
tales of life on the seas. When one takes an admiralty course (no
doubt typically taught by Navy or JAG men), he quickly learns its
jurisdiction, which is basically limited to the high seas and
navigable waters of the United States.
Posted
here is
another professor's notes for his course (this is a Word
document). As one Net source defines "the admiralty jurisdiction
of the United States, [it] extends to all waters, with or without
tides, salt or fresh, natural or artificial, which are navigable
in interstate or foreign water commerce, without regard as to
whether the particular body of water is entirely within a state,
and whether or not the transaction in question is confined to a
single state. It follows that small bodies of water wholly within
a state and not navigable in interstate and foreign commerce do
not provide admiralty jurisdiction. The Great Lakes and the
Mississippi, on the other hand, are clearly within admiralty
jurisdiction as is the Erie Canal, which is wholly within a state
but navigable in interstate commerce." But events and things
having absolutely no relationship with such waters do not fall
within admiralty jurisdiction. See
Herman
Family
Revocable Trust v. The Vessel Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 804
(9th Cir. 2001).
Here are some interesting cases related
to the jurisdiction of admiralty:
In re Smith & Son v. Taylor,
276 U.S. 179 (1928): There is no admiralty jurisdiction when the
deceased was struck and killed by a sling on a pier.
Executive
Jet
Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972):
Neither the fact that an aircraft goes down on navigable waters
nor that the negligence "occurs" while the aircraft is flying over
such waters is sufficient to confer federal admiralty jurisdiction
over aviation tort claims.
Askew v. Amercian Waterways
Operators, Inc.,411
U.S. 325 (1973): Rejecting claim that Florida pollution
statute intruded into admiralty jurisdiction.
LeBlanc
v. Cleveland, 198 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1999)
: Navigability
for admiralty jurisdiction purposes requires that the body of
water support commercial activity, thus there is no admiralty
jurisdiction in a case arising from an injury that occurred on
a body of water that was only used for non-commercial
purposes.
Weaver
v. Hollywood Casino-Aurora,
255 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2001)
: Party seeking to invoke
federal admiralty jurisdiction over a personal injury claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1333(1) and the Jones Act must satisfy
conditions of location on navigable waters and connection with
maritime activity; since the record indicated that the portion
of the river where the casino boat was located may not have
been navigable in fact, the case was remanded so that the
district court could determine whether subject matter
jurisdiction existed.
There are several good places on the
Net that discuss admiralty and its jurisdiction:
Cornell
University's admiralty overview
Notwithstanding the clear
parameters of admiralty jurisdiction, there are some misinformed
souls who have developed weird ideas that “the whole damn country
is run on admiralty,” and "everything
is admiralty." Even a popular work,
Mercier's
Invisible Contracts, is dead wrong about this matter. Torts
and crimes committed on the high seas are within admiralty
jurisdiction; contracts related to maritime commerce, including
insurance, are also within admiralty jurisdiction. But, this does
not mean that all torts, crimes, contracts and other matters are
all admiralty, including matters terrene ("on land"). See
United States v. Rizzo,
297 U.S. 530, 56 S.Ct. 580 (1936)(claim for taxes is
non-maritime).
Lots of "admiralty" gurus have convinced
well-meaning people to litigate this issue in various settings.
For example, Dave Bosset instituted a suit raising a contention
that the IRS was using admiralty procedures when it filed liens
against him. The judge
dismissed
his
complaint, stating:
Contrary to Plaintiff’s
characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests
that this case is within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident
occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to
traditional maritime activity. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v.
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);
Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990). It is plain from the
face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither
admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no
allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no
allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters
of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel
(i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the
Court can discern, Plaintiff’s claims relate to the assessment
and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by
the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff’s motion to
strike is frivolous and should be denied.
See also
United
States
v. Flaherty, D. Hawaii 2010 ("Flaherty's arguments are
without merit. Flaherty argues that this case sounds in admiralty.
However, no incidents occurred on navigable waters, and the case
does not involve admiralty or maritime law. * * * Accordingly, the
court rules federal tax law, not admiralty law, controls. "); and
Russell v.
Caruso.
The latest "admiralty" guru conducting
seminars around the country is Tim Turner. A maritime liens
can arise when a company provides food, fuel, supplies, repairs,
etc, to some ship. If payment for these services is not made, a
maritime lien can arise. Such a lien cannot arise under any other
circumstances. However, Turner runs around telling people that he
filed "maritime liens" in a bankruptcy case in Alabama and
prevailed. He certainly did this, but he did not "win" but was
sanctioned heavily instead. Some have followed his advice,
to their detriment. For example, Ed Parenteau and Jeffrey
Burfeindt in New York filed baseless maritime liens advocated by
Turner and got
indicted.
Richard Ulloa did the same and he also got
indicted.
Turner is promoting a "jump into jail" scheme.
If somebody starts hollering at you about
"admiralty", walk away. It is nuts and unfounded.
* * * * * * *
* * * *
Are Citizens "Vessels of the United States"?
The general federal definition of a
"vessel" appears in
1
U.S.C. §3:
Section 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.
I have heard
bits and pieces of the argument that “citizens are vessels of
the United States”, but only recently was provided something
explaining its parameters. Now that I understand it, I wish to
explain why it is wrong. (Note: The below links go to
FindLaw and access is free, although if you have not signed up,
you will have to do so; there is no cost).
The argument is based on
18
U.S.C.
§ 9, which provides:
The term “vessel of the United
States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in
whole or in part to the
United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation
created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any
State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.
To learn the meaning of this sentence, it must be
diagrammed. The preposition, “
to", and adjective "
the”, are two words in a complex prepositional
phrase. There are 4 objects of this prepositional phrase, which
are:
1. The first object is “ the
United States”;
2. The second is “any citizen thereof”;
3. The third is “any corporation created by or under
the laws of the United States”; and
4. The fourth is “any corporation created by or under
the laws of * * * any State, Territory, District, or
possession thereof.”
These 4 objects modify “vessel”. Thus properly
diagrammed, a vessel of the United States is defined as:
1. A vessel “belonging in whole
or in part to the United States”;
2. A vessel “belonging in whole or in part to * * *
any citizen thereof”;
3. A vessel “belonging in whole or in part to * * *
any corporation created by or under the laws of the United
States”; and
4. A vessel “belonging in whole or in part to * * *
any corporation created by or under the laws of * * * any
State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.”
A citizen is not a vessel of the
United States. A vessel of the United States is defined as one
“belonging in whole or in part to * * * any citizen thereof”.
Another law that is drafted almost similarly
and has almost the same meaning is
16
U.S.C.
§ 2432:
(10) Vessel of the United States
The term "vessel of the United States" means —
(A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46
or a vessel numbered as provided in chapter 123 of that
title;
(B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by —
(i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth,
or possession of the United States;
(ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
(iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
(iv) a corporation created under the laws of the
United States or any State, the District of Columbia, or any
territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
Please also notice that the "term
'vessel of the United States'", applies as it is "used in this
title", and thus this definition applies when this phrase
appears in that title (and only that title), unless otherwise
indicated. How is this phrase used in 18 U.S.C.? This
phrase appears in at least 10 other sections of 18 U.S.C., which
are:
(some are quoted below for your convenience)
18
U.S.C.
§ 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States defined.
18
U.S.C. § 229F. Definitions.
18
U.S.C.
§ 546. Smuggling goods into foreign countries.
Any person owning in whole or in
part any vessel of the
United States who employs, or participates in, or
allows the employment of, such vessel for the purpose of smuggling, or
attempting to smuggle, or assisting in smuggling, any
merchandise into the territory of any foreign government in
violation of the laws there in force, if under the laws of
such foreign government any penalty or forfeiture is provided
for violation of the laws of the United States respecting the
customs revenue, and any citizen of, or person domiciled in,
or any corporation incorporated in, the United States,
controlling or substantially participating in the control of
any such vessel,
directly or indirectly, whether through ownership of corporate
shares or otherwise, and allowing the employment of said vessel for any
such purpose, and any person found, or discovered to have
been, on board of any such
vessel so employed and participating or assisting in
any such purpose, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2191. Cruelty to seamen.
Whoever, being the master or
officer of a vessel of
the United States, on the high seas, or on any other
waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the
United States, flogs, beats, wounds, or without justifiable
cause, imprisons any of the crew of such vessel, or withholds from them
suitable food and nourishment, or inflicts upon them any
corporal or other cruel and unusual punishment, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2192. Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny.
Whoever, being of the crew of a
vessel of the United
States, on the high seas, or on any other waters
within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United
States, endeavors to make a revolt or mutiny on board such vessel, or
combines, conspires, or confederates with any other person on
board to make such revolt or mutiny, or solicits, incites, or
stirs up any other of the crew to disobey or resist the lawful
orders of the master or other officer of such vessel, or to refuse or neglect
his proper duty on board thereof, or to betray his proper
trust, or assembles with others in a tumultuous and mutinous
manner, or makes a riot on board thereof, or unlawfully
confines the master or other commanding officer thereof, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2193. Revolt or mutiny of seamen.
Whoever, being of the crew of a
vessel of the United
States, on the high seas, or on any other waters
within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United
States, unlawfully and with force, or by fraud, or
intimidation, usurps the command of such vessel from the master or other
lawful officer in command thereof, or deprives him of
authority and command on board, or resists or prevents him in
the free and lawful exercise thereof, or transfers such
authority and command to another not lawfully entitled
thereto, is guilty of a revolt and mutiny, and shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2194. Shanghaiing sailors.
Whoever, with intent that any
person shall perform service or labor of any kind on board of
any vessel engaged in trade and commerce among the several
States or with foreign nations, or on board of any vessel of the United States
engaged in navigating the high seas or any navigable water of
the United States, procures or induces, or attempts to procure
or induce, another, by force or threats or by representations
which he knows or believes to be untrue, or while the person
so procured or induced is intoxicated or under the influence
of any drug, to go on board of any such vessel, or to sign or in
anywise enter into any agreement to go on board of any such vessel to perform
service or labor thereon; or
Whoever knowingly detains on board of any such vessel any
person so procured or induced to go on board, or to enter into
any agreement to go on board, by any means herein defined —
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2195. Abandonment of sailors.
Whoever, being master or
commander of a vessel of
the United States, while abroad, maliciously and
without justifiable cause forces any officer or mariner of such vessel on shore,
in order to leave him behind in any foreign port or place, or
refuses to bring home again all such officers and mariners of
such vessel whom
he carried out with him, as are in a condition to return and
willing to return, when he is ready to proceed on his homeward
voyage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than six months, or both.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2273. Destruction of vessel by nonowner.
Whoever, not being an owner,
upon the high seas or on any other waters within the admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, willfully and
corruptly casts away or otherwise destroys any vessel of the United States
to which he belongs, or willfully attempts the destruction
thereof, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
18
U.S.C.
§ 2275. Firing or tampering with vessels.
Whoever sets fire to any vessel
of foreign registry, or any vessel of American registry
entitled to engage in commerce with foreign nations, or to any
vessel of the United
States, or to the cargo of the same, or tampers with
the motive power of instrumentalities of navigation of such vessel, or places
bombs or explosives in or upon such vessel, or does any other act to or upon
such vessel while
within the jurisdiction of the United States, or, if such vessel is of
American registry, while she is on the high sea, with intent
to injure or endanger the safety of the vessel or of her
cargo, or of persons on board, whether the injury or danger is
so intended to take place within the jurisdiction of the
United States, or after the vessel shall have departed therefrom and whoever
attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Legislative origins of 18 U.S.C.
§ 9:
Prior to 1873, Congress adopted a number of
acts regarding piracies and other crimes on the high seas, and
these various federal laws were codified in the Revised Statutes
of 1873,
§
§ 5339 through 5391; a definition of "vessel of the United
States" did not then appear in that set of laws. Some 36
years later, Congress enacted a long act that codified all the
federal crimes in one act; see 35 Stat. 1088, ch. 321. Here,
Congress, in the chapter dealing with piracy and other offenses
on the seas, adopted a definition section that became, in 1948,
18 U.S.C. § 9.