Point 012 A.

Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant is not including and fortifying
"Savings To Suitor Clause" in this document, within the Admiralty, as per EXHIBIT 012
A - SAVINGS TO SUITOR CLAUSE.
ADMIT: Libellee(s) listed within this document admit to the truth and fact that law is
established granting protection and surety to Affiant of all effects and qualities of the
"Savings To Suitor" Clause.

EXHIBIT 012 A - SAVINGS TO SUITOR CLAUSE

saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common
law is competent to give it, and [the district courts] shall also have exclusive original
cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect your property rights] of all
seizures on land First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77. September 24, 1789.

Savings to Suitor Clause

"Be it known that; this Affiant saving to himself all, and all manner of advantage, to the
manifest uncertainties and insufficiencies in the Libellants and Libel contained, for the
answer thereto, or somuch thereof as is material and necessary to be answered, answers
and says, that well and true it is, Affiant is neutral, non-combatant, has never engaged in
Interstate, Intrastate, or International Commerce, for profit and trade without payment of
the assessment; has never intended to incur limited liability, or to become a joint tortfeasor, or participate as part of a "tontine scheme" of a voluntary joint mercantile,
maritime, admiralty adventure for profit, under a policy of limited liability for the
payment of debts; further, Affiant is an end consumer who exchanges sweat equity for
goods consumed; Affiant is a Surety, whose property has been hypothecated under
deception and tort as collateral for the "emergency" of the United States, without Affiant's
consent or that of Affiant's ancestors, and that a further "taking" would be inequitable;
further, the "Doctrine of Necessity" expressly overrides any "Doctrine of Contribution"
Affiant may have ever participated in as continuity for absolute survivorship, utilizing the
only option available to Affiant as [money] currency in the public and private sector, not
intentionally volunteering or submitting to involuntary servitude, without like
consideration in return; further, Affiant is not a trustee, employer or employee of any
governmental unit.

TITLE 28, Sec. 1333. - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of
the States, of:
(1)
Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other
remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

Also,
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a)
saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common
law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all
seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77.
The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and
Interpretation - 1982; Article III, 2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government
Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.
These facts of history and law move (remand) Affiant out of the Article I forum into
Article III, "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". Delovio v. Boit. And many subsequent
cases Re: The Huntress etc. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district
courts of the United States in Article III judiciary.
Bring into light the re-phrasing of Congress in the codification of the 'saving to suitors'
clause of 1789. In the amendment, Congress admits it cannot change the intent of the
clause. So I prefer the older reading because it adheres to two valuable points;
1) this remedy is "common law" as of 1789 - no blending equity (Bennett v. Butterworth
52 US 669), and;
2) courts of competent jurisdiction. Modern usage of the clause, as well as earlier, apply
diversity of citizenship to State citizenship (a dispute between two different State
Citizens) and a State or United States citizen v. a foreign citizen. The States went
bankrupt in 1933 by governor's convention leaving men and women the state; the court of
competent jurisdiction.
Exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 USCS 1333 is limited to
maritime causes of action begun and carried on in rem, while under "saving to suitors"
clause of 1333, suitor who holds in personam claim that might be enforced by suit in
personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may also bring suit, at his
election, in state court or on "common law" side of federal court. Lavergne v Western
Co. of North America, Inc. (La) 371 So 2d 807 (superseded on other grounds by statute as
stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins. Co. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937).
2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY 122 (Footnote 9) (emphasis added).
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Since the Enrollment Act of March 3, 1863, the United States has been overlaid on to the
States and divided the United States into military districts, with a Provost Marshall over
each district under the Department of War. This Act forms the basis of our Military
Selective Service Act of June 24, 1948, c. 625, 62 Stat. 604 and is codified to title 50

sections 451-473. The military was placed under admiralty jurisdiction by the law of
prize and capture under the "An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications
upon Captured Property, and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize. This law
forms the current basis of title 10 sections 7651-7681 of the Military Code of Justice, this
law was passed March 25, 1862 under the Insurrection & Rebellion Acts of August 6,
1861 and July 17, 1862.
In 1933 a change was made from the English Common law to the Federal Common Law
under the Erie v. Tompkins decision, which is the impetus of The Clearfield Doctrine
under Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943) and the United States v. Kimbell
Foods 440 U.S. 715 (1999), where they adopted the U.C.C. rules in formulating Federal
Common Law. This is because Maritime Commercial Transactions under the U.C.C. are
indicative of the Federal Common Law of Admiralty INTERPOOL LTD v. CHAR YIGH
890 F. 2D PG. 1453 [1989].
Then in 1966 they merged Law, Equity, Civil and Admiralty under one rule, under the
F.R.C.P. this is all laid in volume 324 pg. 325 of the F.R.D. [Federal Rules Decisions],
this means that your common law is under admiralty. This is why title 28 1333 (1) gave
the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction exclusive of the States for
all cases of admiralty maritime jurisdiction, under the saving to suitors clause. They
transferred your common law to the district courts of the United States under the Saving
to Suitor Clause. Article 3 section 2 gives the district courts of the United States judicial
power in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. This is the only side of the
court that has Article 3 judicial powers under the War Powers Act of Admiralty. The
above is the reason you cannot get a remedy in state court. The following Laws will
give you your remedy under the common law in admiralty.
1. The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 741-752
2. The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U.S.C.A. section 740
3. The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U.S.C.A. Chapter 147 section 14706
4. The Public Vessels Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 781-790
5. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act title 28 sections 1602-1611
6. The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7
(1) a citizen of the United States is a vessel. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the
use of the United States, irrespective of ownership (A) the premises of the United States
diplomatic, consular, military . . . . and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto. (B)
residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto irrespective of
ownership.
7. The False Claims Act of title 31 U.S.C.A. section 3729 (a)(7)
8. The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125(a)
9. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of title 39 sections 1-908 & 36213691
10. The Admiralty, maritime and Prize cases title 28 section 1333 (1)(2)
11. Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with the enemy
act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or

omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by the president under the
authority of this act.

Title 28 USC states in part:

Sec. 1333 Admiralty, maritime and prize cases.
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the
courts of the states, of;
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to
suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise
entitled.
The Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9 on page 88 states:
... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy,
where the common law is competent to give it. Hone Ins. Co. v. North
Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871).
The Oregon Revised Statutes 71.1030 state:
Supplementary general principles of law applicable.
Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial
Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and
the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent,
estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake,
bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement
its provisions.
A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law, even though the
case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. But one has to make the demand
in
his briefs to the court. Remember silence is consent to be tried under a
maritime jurisdiction.
Under the Local Rules for Federal Courts on Oregon Rule 1(b), FORM OF
PAPERS
TO BE FILED, it states in part:
(b) In the space to the right of the center of the first page,
opposite the caption of the case, there shall be placed:
(1) the case number;
(2) the nature of the action, such as admiralty,
antitrust,contract, eminent domain, fraud, negligence, patent,
securities;
The jurisdiction of the case must be identified before the case can proceed.
If the judge takes judicial notice of the nature of the charge, without
communication to the defendant, how can the defendant know in what
terms he
is to couch his defense? Be aware that there will probably be an attempt to
do just this. Therefore there has to be entered, upon the record, a
definite objection to going forward until the jurisdiction has been defined
in no uncertain terms. An at law jurisdiction is imperative. Otherwise the

case is lost in that court.

Once the jurisdiction at law has been determined the defendant must
demand
that the original contract (not a copy) be brought foreward. This could be
most interesting. In a court at law the original contract must be entered
as evidence (in maritime a copy will suffice). The writer has heard that
the original Social Security applications have been destroyed and only
copies on film now exist. If this is true the Social Security contract
could no longer be valid and therefore no case exist. But should the
original be brought into evidence one now has the proper at law jurisdiction
he requires to argue misrepresentation, etc., as there was no statement of
waiver of rights upon the application. What has been done with the
original
drivers license applications also needs to be discovered.