While the codes, laws and practices of Admiralty court rooms may vary slightly in different
jurisdictions, the general elements of Admiralty law and courts are:
(i) Through the Statutes of Westminster, Admiralty Law and Courts have the same effective
range of jurisdiction over traditionally “Common Law” areas such as (but not limited to) Trust
Law, Estate Law, Property Law, Land Law, Tax Law, Judicial Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law and
Company Law. However, in times of conflict (real or artificial), Admiralty Law now has effectively
superiority under the Western-Roman model compared to “Common Law”; and
(ii) In Admiralty, the mere existence of controversy (i.e. its recording or filing) is sufficient for
there to be a cause in law (to answer) whereas in Common Law, the claim must first be proven,
before the cause of law is permitted to proceed. This is the primary test for the existence of
Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture, denial or dispute; and
(iii) In Admiralty, the form of law carries with the issue in contest at any given time – as Admiralty
Law is able to switch between Trust Law, Estate Law, Judicial Law, Criminal Law and back again
as each issue is addressed; whereas in Common Law the form of law by tradition was
associated with the specific jurisdiction and type of court. This is the second test for the
existence of Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture, denial or dispute; and
(iv) In Admiralty, the existence of the controversy is paramount and the origin of cause is
secondary; whereas in Common Law, the cause of action is primary and the procedural form is
traditionally secondary to justice. Thus Admiralty is predicated on “style over substance of law”
and is why Admiralty justice rests on procedural integrity rather than questions of law and true
justice. This is the third test for the existence of Admiralty Law and is not subject to conjecture,
denial or dispute; and
(v) As procedural integrity is paramount in Admiralty, the deliberate and willful breach of
procedures by justices, magistrates, attorneys, clerks and law officers under Admiralty matters
are the most grave of offences with severe punishment. These procedures are borne from
Admiralty statute and not subject to judicial or clerical interpretation and not from “internal
policies”; and
(vi) Admiralty Courts and Law principally deal with persons in one of two states: (1) as a seaman
(In Propria Persona) or (private) agent (Sui Juris) (2) as a prize (thing and commodity as Legal
Person). Unless otherwise stated, Admiralty Courts inevitably deal with the accused as a legal
person and therefore as a thing and “prize” to be salvaged, secured and against which certain
bounties, duties and fines may be levied. Therefore, in an Admiralty Court there is no such object
as a “man” or “woman” only a “seaman” or “agent”; and
(vii) Agents must be bonded and an authorized certificate of the Bond duly registered and
recorded in accord with Admiralty Law, otherwise they are not authorized to act for their
principal. A Party acting as an Agent that refuses to produce their Bond or License Certificate
(proving the existence of the Bond) automatically is in default and holding full liability. Under
Admiralty Law, an Officer of the Court (such as a Justice) is forbidden to act as an Agent and to
receive any interest in the salvage of prize money; and
(viii) In Admiralty Law, as the existence of the controversy is paramount (as a debt) compared to
the offence that originated it, the controversy may be settled financially as compensation
without admission of culpability or guilt to the originating offence in matters of fraud, negligence,
trespass and waste except in matters of murder, violence, sexual abuse and treason; and
(ix) The only doorway to Common Law (in limited circumstances) is through a sworn affidavit
where the statute is annexed to the affidavit and attached memorandum as prima facie
evidence prior to any hearing or trial under Admiralty Law.