:Law-History:

Common Law versus Roman/Civil Law:

Law comes from God. God is triune, so law is triune:

1. God the Creator: Iam (Aristotle: Oligarchy, Democracy, Admiralty/Maritime-law): (be)
2. God the Redeemer: God with us, Yeshua ben Joseph bar Aba in whom we are each a cell in the living body of the Christ: we are 'within-God' (do)
3. God the Sanctifier: indwelling holy spirit: we have 'God-within' (have) (Plato: Republic, Common-law)

Roman law comes from the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Mesopotamia, the seat of culture.

The oligarchic entrepreneur's overthrow of ancient Israel's republican form of government is recorded in 1 Samuel, Chapter 8.

The earliest recorded Maritime Law, the law of commerce, is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C., then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League in which Maritime Law was part of the civil law.

The Council of Florence [1439]: the Doctrine of "The Filioque" [Christ indwelling] affirms teachings of St. Augustine and Philo of Alexandria.
Anti-Philo intrigues around the Nicene Council (source of the Nicene Creed) relate to oligarchy in the Church, resisted by the Eastern [Byzantine] Rite, and resulted in the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the republican movements in Europe and America.

William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city within the walls, provisioning by ship. William compromised, granting the merchants the "Lex Mercantoria" (Maritime Law) which to this day is the law of the inner City of London, from which Banks rule the corporate world and from which the insurance industry grew out of gambling on merchant ships due back to port.

Protection of their shipping industry was one of the main reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious persons (companies) or limited liability; but, recognized only natural persons and full liability. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.

At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day, {The others being the revision of the Magna Carta in 1225, the Petition of Rights [1628] and the Bill of Rights [1689]}. The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation.

Civil Law is the king's law as the sovereign ruler. Common Law is the law of the people, and in the American practice of it the people become sovereign.

In the declaratory trust titled Declaration of Independence, Jefferson listed 18 grievances against denial of our common law rights as free-born Englishmen. He made an appeal to the Laws of Nations, making it an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations.

Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution (an international bankruptcy contract) defines the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction. The legislators of the States would not ratify the constitution without guarrantees for their fundamental common law freedoms, so the Bill of Rights was added. We The People never did ratify the constitution.

Sequence:

• Declaration Of Independence [1776]: ordinance within the Law of Nations to eliminate Admiralty Law jurisdiction from the Domestic Law of the colonies
• US Constitution [1787]: ordinance within the Law of Nations as an international bankruptcy reorganization of the Articles of Confederation of the several States
• Judiciary Act [1789]: recognizes separate jurisdiction of Admiralty Law from Domestic/Common Law
• George Rapp Harmony Society [1805]
• DeLovio v. Boit [1815]
• Dr. List's Letters [1825]
• Swift v. Tyson [1842]
• Limited Liability Act [1851]
• Tontine Insurance [1868]
• Federal Reserve Act [1913]: structure essentially that of the George Rapp Harmony Society and the Tontine Insurance schemes [pure wagering policies specifically forbidden in the constitutions of several States].
• House Joint Resolution 192 [1933]
• Erie Railroad v. Tompkins [1938]
• Victory Tax Act [1942]
• US v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association [1944]
• McCarren Act [1945]

The Fed is a maritime lender and insurance underwriter to the United States with no risk in the maritime venture as a lender, or as insurer, and has no vested interest in the subject matter insured. The subject matter insured by the Fed is the Public National Credit System, which is a maritime venture for profit under limited liability for payment of debt.
For the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt, anyone who benefits from the Public National Credit [provided by the Federal Reserve] has an insurable interest in a maritime voyage subject to, and can be required to, make premium payments under the Law of Admiralty and Maritime [the income tax] as long as the contract is in force. All resources of the US have been hypothecated (pledged) to the Federal Reserve as a security for the Public National Credit System.

The House Joint Resolution 192, passed by Congress on June 5, 1933, made it impossible for anyone to pay a debt at law; and, this fact makes anyone who benefits from the Public National Credit System a sole merchant, subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction in all controversies involving that credit. Because of House Joint Resolution 192, we have lost access to Common Law and allodial land titles, and the foreign jurisdiction of Admiralty Law has been imposed upon our domestic law.

Another mechanism used to entrap the people of the US into Admiralty jurisdiction was the Social Security Act of 1933. The Social Security Act, a retirement benefit for residents of Washington, D.C. and employees on Federal Property entraps the free people of the States into Admiralty jurisdiction by assumpsit contract. By the act of a free state citizen taking a Social Security number, a supposed contract makes that person an assumed Federal citizen under Admiralty jurisdiction.

The maritime venture for profit, via the Public National Credit System is based on a false and fraudulent premise that the voyage itself is lawful. The voyage is in direct violation of the Positive Law of the Law of Nations and is void from its inception. Because of this, no agency of government, and no court has lawful jurisdiction to enforce any claim involving the Public National Credit System. The de facto jurisdiction exercised by government agencies, and psuedo-agencies such as IRS, CIA, and FBI, as well as Federal District Courts will be exercised until successfully corrected by a court of proper jurisdiction.

Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776

Written in the style of a formal complaint, or action at law, it contains a Declaration, a Common-Law Bill of Particulars or Counts, and a prayer to the Supreme Judge of the world. The stated purpose of the declaration was to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God entitle them, and that, out of respect for the opinions of mankind, they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The 13th Count states that: He (King George) has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving assent to their acts of pretended legislation:" The Declaration defines the foreign jurisdiction:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
For protecting, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes upon us without our consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in our neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

What was the jurisdiction foreign to their constitution? Every complaint in the 13th count falls under the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law and the Law of Nations. Although the colonists were British subjects, they were being treated as if they were a conquered nation as sanctioned only in Admiralty jurisdiction.

The Declaration states that (those United Colonies) "as Free and Independent States, they have the full power to levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." If we are treated as conquered states, we may as well join at least in asserting our statehood.

Declaring to the nations of the world that we are of equal status and thus bound by the Law of Nations in dealings with other nations, the Declaration also clearly expresses the intent to ban the Admiralty jurisdiction from domestic law within the borders of their States.

This broke the hold of English feudalism over colonial land and converted all land title to allodiums. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Wallace V. Harmstad in 1863 said: "I see no way of solving this question, except by determining whether our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal." "I venture to suggest that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails on this subject has come from our retaining, since the American Revolution, the feudal nomenclature of estates and tenures, as fee, freehold, heirs, feoffment, and the like." "Our question, then, narrows itself down to this: is fealty any part of our land tenures? What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by openly and humbly kneeling before his lord, being ungirt, uncovered, and holding up his hands both together between those of the lord, who sat before him, and there professing that he did become his man from that day forth, for life and limb, and certainly honour, and then receiving a kiss from his lord? This was the oath of fealty which was, according to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the very notion of a feud." "We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of soil of Pennsylvania from the grand characteristics of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprietaries (city of Philadelphia) themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial."

U.S. Constitution: 1787

Admiralty jurisdiction of Congress is defined in Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts . . .of the United States. . ." To borrow money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. To raise and support armies. . .
To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for. . . Land and Naval forces. To provide for calling forth the militia. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. . ."

These powers are all within the jurisdiction of Admiralty and Maritime Law and encompass most of the powers granted to Congress.

Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III, Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Minister and Consuls; to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; . . . "

The full scope and meaning of Article III, Section 2, was addressed by Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit in 1815: What is the true interpretation of the clause - all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction? "If we examine the etymology, or received use of the words "Admiralty" and "Maritime jurisdiction," we shall find, that they include jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea, or, in other words, all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea.

In all the great maritime nations of Europe, the same "Admiralty jurisdiction" is uniformly applied to the courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime contract and concerns. We shall find the terms just as familiarly known among the jurists of Scotland, France, Holland and Spain as of England, and applied to their own courts, possessing substantially the same jurisdiction, as the English Admiralty in the reign of Edward III. "The clause however of the constitution not only confers Admiralty jurisdiction, but the word "Maritime" is superadded, seemingly ex-industria to remove every latent doubt. "Cases of Maritime jurisdiction" must include all maritime contracts, torts and injuries, which are in the understanding of the Common Law, as well as of the Admiralty, . ."

In Article VI, it is stated: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the Confederation. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Clearly, the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction granted to the Congress and the Judiciary is very broad and extensive. So, what provisions were made in the Constitution to prevent the encroachment of this Admiralty jurisdiction into our Domestic law, the substantive Common Law, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence? Article I, Section 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

Beginning in 1690 (around the time when the first central bank was established in London), the colonies experimented with credit and unbacked paper as a form of public money.

The results were always the same: gold and silver coin disappeared from circulation (bad money drives out the good), commerce stagnated, unemployment grew. In the war for independence John Adams says `promises of money were scattered over the land alike by the States and by the United States, until "bills became as plenty as oak leaves."

Peletiah Webster says: "Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."

What had happened to the domestic, substantive, Common Law that establishes and preserves free institutions, fought for in the War for Independence? Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, just before the Constitutional convention, Washington wrote to Madison: "The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present." On February 3, 1787, Washington wrote to Henry Knox: "If any person had told me that there would have been such a formidable rebellion as exists, I would have thought him fit for a madhouse."
The Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, May 14, 1787 and George Washington was elected President. Randolph, Governor of Virginia spoke: "In the infancy of the science of constitutions and of confederacies, when the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen." The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the Constitution is: "The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States." By refusing the power of issuing bills of credit, the door was shut, but not barred, on paper money by constitutional law. Although Congress was not authorized to issue notes of the United States, the borrowing clause (thought absolutely necessary for emergencies) left a means of borrowing notes of another entity into circulation. (e.g., a private bank or a central bank).

On the 28th of August, the convention took steps make domestic Common Law function in money matters. The first draft of the constitution had forbidden the states to emit bills of credit without the consent of Congress. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words "coin money" the words "nor emit bills of credit, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts", "making these prohibitions absolute." Mr. Sherman "thought this a favorable crises for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money, would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it." After discussion, Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Sherman's motion was unanimously agreed to by the convention. The result of this action appears in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Its most salient feature is "No State shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."

After the constitutional convention, it took nearly a year for the states to ratify the Constitution, primarily because they insisted on specifying certain substantive Common Law rights and principles. These are the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. Common Law, operating on money of substance, brought quick relief. George Washington wrote to Marquis de LaFayette, June 13, 1790: "You have doubtless been informed, from time to time, of the happy progress of our affairs. The principle difficulties seem in a great measure to have been surmounted." In a letter, March 19, 1791, he wrote to LaFayette: "Our country, my dear sir, is fast progressing in its political importance and social happiness." On July 19, 1791, he wrote to Catherine McCauley: "The United States enjoys a sense of prosperity and tranquillity under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for." July 20, 1791, he wrote to David Humphrey:"Tranquility reigns among the people with the disposition towards the general government, which is likely to preserve it. Our public credit stands on that high ground which three years ago it would have been considered as a species of madness to have foretold.

Judiciary Act (1789):

September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act. Section 9 of this Act deals with equity, admiralty and maritime jurisdictions of our courts. Congress said that "the forms and modes of proceeding in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to the course of Civil Law."

Section 34 deals exclusively with Common Law jurisdiction of the Federal courts: "That the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at Common Law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."

By congressional action in 1792, the form and modes of proceeding in such cases were directed to be "according to the principles, rules and usage, which belong to courts of equity and to courts of Admiralty respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of Common Law."

Thus, in 1792, Congress recognized three separate and distinct jurisdictions of the federal courts; Equity, Admiralty and Common Law. By "jurisdiction" we mean lawful authority to act on the subject matter involved in a controversy, a particular thing within that subject matter, and authority to act against a particular person associated with the subject matter.

All three jurisdictions have cognizance over civil matters, as distinguished from criminal matters, depending on the subject matter in controversy and nature of the cause.

An action at Common Law properly brought into a common law court binds the court by the principles, rules and procedures of Common Law. An action properly brought before an Equity or Admiralty court binds the court by the principles, rules and procedures of the civil law dealing with the subject matter.

Equity has no cognizance over criminal matters so in criminal cases there are only two jurisdictions: Common Law or Admiralty. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in both Common Law and Maritime law for certain types of cases and subject matter. If the subject matter or nature of the cause is Maritime that, even a Common Law court is bound to apply Maritime Law. No Admiralty court has any jurisdiction to hear Common Law issues.

Principles, rules and procedures

Common Law	Civil Law
Right to trial by jury	No right to trial by jury
12 judges: the jury	1 judge (chancelor)
12 judges: control the trial	One chancelor controls trial:
12 judges: judge justice of law	jury is advisory to chancelor
12 judges: determine admissibility of evidence	chancelor determines admissibility of evidence
12 judges: apply law to facts	jury must accept the law as interpreted by chancelor
12 judges: render verdict according to conscience	jury renders verdict according to legal opinions dictated and evidence presented

The Supreme Court analysed these two sections of the judiciary act in the Huntress case in 1840: The Huntress case was a libel in personam against the owners of the steamship Huntress. The Court said: "In these, and in analogous cases, the only question that can be considered as an open one is, whether they come within that clause of the Constitution that says, the judicial power of the United States shall extend to "all causes of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction." If they do, then the original cognizance of them is by the ninth section of the Judiciary Act, given to the district court". . . . "The argument, that this clause is controlled by the Seventh Amendment, which secures the right of trial by jury in all suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, has no application to the constitutional grant; because these are not suits at Common Law"

In the DeLovio vs. Boit case, Justice Story said: "And, the ground is made stronger by the consideration, that the right of trial by jury is preserved by the constitution in all suits at common law, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars; and by the statute this right is excluded in all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction." Here we have a clear statement, by the Supreme Court that there is no access to Common Law in courts of Admiralty.

In 1832, the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania addressed the meaning and intent of the 7th amendment in the case of Bains v. The Schooner James and Catherine: ". . . by attempting to introduce the admiralty jurisdiction of the civil law, . . . a foundation is laid for interminable conflicts of jurisdiction between the courts of the State and the Union." "It is vain to contend that the Seventh Amendment will be any efficient guarantee for the right, in suits at Common law, if an Admiralty jurisdiction exists in the United States, commensurate with what is claimed by the claimant in this case. Its assertion is, in my opinion, a renewal of the contest between legislative power and royal prerogative, the Common and the Civil Law, striving for mastery; the one to secure, the other to take away the trial by jury, . . . judicial power must first annul the Seventh Amendment, or judicial subtly transform a suit at Common Law, into a case of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, before I take cognizance as such a case as this without a jury."

Common Law is not accessible in courts of Admiralty. As J. Reuben Clark said: there is a constant ideological conflict between Civil and Common Law for the control of society.

In the book "Honest Money", Dr. Norburn writes: "What a marvellous country was this new world - AMERICA. Its coastline, dotted with deep harbors, seemed endless. It had great mountains and great rivers. There were magnificent forests and vast fertile plains. Its earth was rich with minerals. Those who came to live in this veritable paradise were of sturdy stock. They were industrious, saving and ingenious. They had the best government ever devised. How does it happen that now, after more than three hundred years of intense toil, the inhabitants of this nation find themselves more than ten trillion dollars in debt? They have received no benefits to justify this debt. To whom do they owe it? How were the claims acquired?

Introduction of the George Rapp Society:

First successful communistic religious organization in the United States.
The society was designed for profit making (for some) and its formula included a controlled economy under limited liability, which is the same as the Federal Reserve formula. the formula that brought admiralty inland and bars access to substantive Common Law.

George Rapp founded the "Harmony Society" in 1805 at Harmony in Beaver County, Penna., moved to Harmony on the Wabash, in Indiana, and then to Economy in Beaver County, Penna. This case was an action of account brought by Jacob Schriber, administrator of Peter Schriber, deceased, against George Rapp and others, doing business in company under the name of Harmony Society. To sustain the action, the plaintiff proved by testimony that the Harmony Society possessed a great deal of wealth in the form of a pool of personal property, real property, factories, etc.

Re: Schriber v. Rapp, Pa. Supreme Court, 351 (1836)

Witness, Dr. Smith, once a member of the association stated: "They intended to make money when they entered into it; it was a part of their object. I believe there were Articles at Harmony, but everyone was not obliged to sign it. Equal rights, equal enjoyments and equal profits. Rapp said it should not be incorporated, for that would take too much power from him. Rapp was not elected. He assumed the power that Moses and Aaron had. If anyone would not do what he said, he would say, `What have you to do about it? I have the power - I could crush you. All you have to do is obey.' He got worse as he got wealthy."

George Rapp was a preacher, and a very persuasive one. Adam Shelly testified on behalf of the plaintiff respecting the first articles of association on the Wabash. "The people were directed to come in companies, one of them read it and the rest signed it. As to the article signed at Economy, Rapp made a long speech. Said any one who would sign it would have his name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. If they did not, their names would be blotted out, and God would ask him about it."

Defendants, to sustain the issue on their part, produced in evidence the articles of association. Some pertinent excerpts are as follows:
Article 1: We the undersigned, for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do hereby give, grant and forever convey, to the said George Rapp and his associates, and their heirs, and assigns, all our property. . . for the benefit of said association or community.
Article 2: We do further covenant and agree to and with the said George Rapp and his associates, that we will severally submit faithfully to the laws and regulations of said community, . . . therefore holding ourselves bound to promote the interest and welfare of the said community, not only by the labor of our own hands, but also by that of our children, our families and all others who now are or hereafter may be under our control.
Article 3: . . .that we will never claim or demand either for ourselves, our children, or for anyone belonging to us, directly or indirectly, any compensation, wages or reward whatever, for our, or their labor or services, rendered to the said community, . . .
Article 5: The said George Rapp and his associates further agree to supply the undersigned severally with all the necessaries of life. . . and to such extent as their circumstances may require.
Article 6: If any of the undersigned. . . should withdraw from the association, then the said George Rapp and his associates agree to refund to him or them the value of all such property without interest, as he or they may have brought into the community. . . Said value to be refunded. . . as the said George Rapp and his associates shall determine.

The court ruled for defendant George Rapp on the basis that "an association for the purpose expressed is prohibited neither by statute nor the common law." And the court also stated: "It is supposed, however, that as the intestate had power, by the articles, to secede from the society and take out whatever he brought into it, the successor to his personal rights may exercise it as his representative. Such, however, are not the terms of the articles. . . The right of accession, therefore, is intransmissable." The court also stated that "the law knows no duress by advise and persuasion", and, therefore there was no fraud in the inducement to sign the article.

In analyzing this case, we see that: 1. The complaint was brought under the jurisdiction of common law. 2. The plaintiff lost because of the common law and constitutionally protected right to contract. 3. Under the common law, the only way to break the contract was to prove fraud. 4. According to testimony, the members of the association "intended to make money when they entered into it."

The witnesses did not explain how they expected to "make money" under the terms of the contract. The only reasonable explanation is that they were gambling that they would be last survivors in the Association - and share in the distribution of assets; and/or they expected to benefit from limited liability by sharing any loses of the association with the other members. Last survivors take all in a wagering policy, and mutual sharing of losses is insurance.

In analyzing the George Rapp Association formula, we see:
1. The contract contained a forfeiture clause. (Members would "never claim compensation;" upon withdrawal, value of property would be refunded "without interest" - The right of accession of property donated to the Association is intransmissable to heirs of the decedent.
2. Rapp and his associates had no risk as the insurer. They not only had nothing to lose in the event of death of a contributor and member - but gained all property donated with no possible claim from heirs of the decedent.
3. It was a controlled economy - under the exclusive control of George Rapp and his associates.
4. There was no accountability to members of the Association. . .

You will see, later on, that if Schriber had taken these facts into an Admiralty court and applied the proper Admiralty Law to these facts - he should have won his case.

George Rapp continued to gain affluence and prestige -- and dignitaries came from all over the world to his mansion at "Economy" to marvel at the fantastic success of his society.

Why shouldn't he be successful? By contract, he had slave labor, donations of untold wealth from members who, if they chose to withdraw before they died, could only get back the equivalent of what they had donated without interest; and, if they died as a member, the property and assets donated remained in the society as long as it existed.

George Rapp died in 1847; however, the society went on. Evidence will show that the tremendous wealth accumulated by this society was subsequently used to fashion a George Rapp Society on a much larger scale, with plans to ultimately encompass the world in a "superstate" controlled and governed by mercantile interests, under the law of admiralty: a superstate wherein all the property in the world, and all the people on space-ship "Earth", are pledged to the benefit of this World-wide mercantile association. The "New World Order".

DeLovio v. Bott [1815]:

In 1815, in the case of DeLovio v. Boit, the Supreme Court ruled: [Opinion written by Justice Story]: "The Admiralty, from the highest antiquity, has exercised a very extensive criminal jurisdiction, and punished offenses by fine and imprisonment. The celebrated inquisition at Queensborough, in the reign of Edward III, would alone be decisive. And, even at Common Law it had been adjudged, that the Admiralty might fine for contempt. . . Appeal, and not a Writ of Error, lies for its decrees. . . Yet, it is conceded on all sides, that of maritime hypothecations of the Admiralty depends, or ought to depend, as to contracts upon the subject matter, i.e. whether maritime or not; and as to torts, upon locality. . .

Neither the Judicial Act nor the Constitution, which it follows, limit the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the District Court in any respect to place. It is bounded only by the nature of the cause over which it is to decide. On the whole, I am, without the slightest hesitation, ready to pronounce, that the delegation of cognizance of `all civil cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction' to the Courts of the United States comprehends all maritime contracts, torts, and injuries. The latter branch is necessarily bounded by locality; the former extends over all contracts, (wheresoever they may be made or executed, or whatsoever may be the form of the stipulation) which relate to the navigation, business or commerce of the sea.
The next inquiry is, what are properly to be deemed "maritime contracts." Happily, in this particular there is little room for controversy. All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation are included, among other things, marine hypothecations . . .and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance. . . My judgement accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within (though not exclusively within) the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of the United States."