Canonum De Ius Rex
Canons of Sovereign Law

one heaven iconII.   Sovereign

2.13 Commonwealth Law Form

Article 190 - Admiralty

Canon 6804 (link)

Admiralty (Admiralty Law) refers to an organized pseudo - legal commercial (OPCA) form of law first formed in the early 18th Century, but falsely claimed of much older provenance, whereby the operation of the “law of the land” and “laws of nations” is suspended during times of controversy and belligerence in favour of a legal system based loosely around maritime themes and mimicking all other forms of law “on the land” for the exercising of jurisdiction over causes, both civil and criminal, commerce, navigation, capture and transfer of property and the conduct and behavior of public servants as if military personnel. As Admiralty Law is a pseudo - legal commercial (OPCA) form of law, based on fraud, deception, false pretences, theft, force, violence, fear, corruption, profanity, sacrilige, ignorance and piracy (literally), all forms of Admiralty Law issed by Westminster and subsequent parliaments and bodies are hereby null and void having no force or effect ecclesiastically, lawfully or legally. 

Canon 6805 (link)

The word Admiral is an English military title first formed in the 16th Century from three (3) common Latin terms ad meaning “to”, mira meaning “wonderful, marvellous, amazing, surprising, awesome” and alis meaning “a wing of the military”. Hence, the original and literal meaning of the title Admiral was “to command a wonderful, marvellous, amazing, surprising, awesome wing of the military”. The claim that the title is a borrowed Arabic title amir-ar-rahl meaning “chief of the transport” is an absolute absurdity and clumsy insult to intelligence as for England under Henry VIII and his Venetian advisors to honor the Ottomans at the time by using an alleged title would have been an unthinkable and mortal insult against both nations.

Canon 6806 (link)

The title “Vice Admiral” is a formal term defining a senior naval flag officer rank. The word “vice” is a Latin word equivalent to “agent” and means “on account of; like”. Therefore a “Vice Admiral” is a senior flag officer acting as agent for an Admiral or Lord Admiral. The term flag officer refers to one who acts in such a capacity as an “agent for an Admiral” as being a duly commissioned officer, senior enough to be entitled to fly the flag to mark where the office exercises command. Thus the presence of an Admiralty flag within a court room or place near or immediately behind the location of an official is demonstration of an Admiralty claim of possession of such authority and jurisdiction for the office and one occupying such office.

Canon 6807 (link)

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.

Canon 6808 (link)

The first Lord Admiral appointed in Western - Roman history was Tommaso Morosini (b.1485 - d.1540) also known as “Thomas the Moor”, “Thomas the sorcerer”, the son of Nicolò Morosini granted the royal title by King Henry VIII (1509 - 1547) upon the formation of the first naval dockyards in English history in 1512/13 at Woolwich on the south bank of the River Thames near the palace of King Henry VIII at Greenwich:

(i) In 1512 the Pisans and Venetians brought with them master ship makers and the skills to build carracks superior to the Genoese and Portuguese . By 1514 completed the first great carrack known as Henri Grâce à Dieu “Henry by Grace of God” (Great Harry) being 165 ft (50m), 1,500 ton, 43 heavy gun, 141 light gun, 1,000 crew. Several great carracks followed from the Woolwich dockyards including the Saint Peter, Saint Michael and the famous Saint Mary (Mary Rose); and

(ii) By 1517, a merchant stores and dock at Deptford was converted and expanded into the second fully fledged ship building and dockyards for the Navy. In 1527, upon the completion of a set of defensive stone forts at Portsmouth, King Henry VIII commissioned the third dockyards of his Navy and its new official home at Portsmouth; and

(iii) In 1540, upon the execution of Lord Admiral and Baron Cromwell Thomas Morosini by Henry VIII, Venetian noble Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” meaning “Red God” or “the Red One” was appointed Lord Admiral and 1st Earl of Bedford. Contrary to deliberately false history, Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” remained Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII in 1547; and

(iv) Assisted by Venetian intelligence and strategy, in 1545 England under Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” successfully defeated a massive French invasion fleet of over thirty thousand (30,000) soldiers and two hundred (200) ships. The French suffered heavy losses against the English Navy carracks and retreated. However, the English lost the Saint Mary (Mary Rose). The claim that John Dudley a militia land general was both Lord Admiral at the time and fully knowledgeable in Venetian maritime strategy is an absurd untruth; and

(v) Contrary to deliberate false history, upon the death of King Henry in 1547, John Dudley, Earl of Northumberland did not become Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII and the reign of young King Edward (1547-1553). In protest, the Venetians withdrew support and master craftsman and the dockyards fell into disrepair. Upon the death of young King Edward in 1553, John Dudley himself was captured and executed as a traitor. However, on Mary (1553-1558) succeeding to the throne, her husband Philip II of Spain was instrumental in ensuring that the Queen disbanded the English Navy, closed the dockyards and ordered the remaining ships of the fleet to be burnt at their moorings. By 1554, England was without a single ship of war, or Admiral, or Navy; and

(vi) Again contrary to deliberate false history, the next Lord Admiral of England was Francesco Orsini (Russo or Russell), 2nd Earl of Bedford, also famously known as Francis “the Draupon” (Drake) who was appointed in 1559 following Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) assuming the throne with the commission to reestablish the Navy. Lord Admiral Francesco “the Draupon” (Drake) first reopened Deptford Dockyards. New “strategic” dockyards and ship building was commissioned at Chatham on the River Medway in Kent and at Plymouth on the River Plym in Devon by 1560, followed by the reopening of Woolwich and Portsmouth Dockyards.

(vii) Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) was responsible from 1558 for commissioning of the historic mass production of a new type of ship called an English Galleon being a small (100 ft), lightweight (around 300 ton), well armed (20 to 24 guns), relatively fast (10 knots) and highly maneuverable vessel. The new flag ship of the new English Navy was the first privateer vessel in Western Roman history known as the Pelican or also known as the Gild en Hindre meaning “to seize and plunder (hinder)”; and

(viii) In 1562 Giovanni Farnese “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) was awarded the first form of “Letters of Marque” by Queen Elizabeth I as the first Vice - Admiral and privateer. By 1563, Vice - Admiral Hawkins succeeded in capturing Spanish slave ships in the Caribbean and trading the proceeds. In 1564, Queen Elizabeth I personally funded a second “pirate” expedition, with huge profits. Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) accompanied Giovanni “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) on his third pirate voyage as the English navy and narrowly escaped capture; and

(ix) By 1572, Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) with the new English Galleons of the Pelican and Swan successfully captured and plundered as “legal pirates” (privateers) a number of Spanish and French slave and treasure ships to become the most successful “legal pirate of the era, resulting in phenomenal wealth returning to England; and

(x) Both Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) and Giovanni Ghisleri “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) were instrumental in firstly the delay of the Spanish invasion of England in 1587 and then its destruction in 1588 by deliberately using booby trapping the old captured Spanish, Portuguese and French galleons as if Spanish ships and then setting them on fire, causing them to explode within close proximity of the main Spanish ships moored at Calais in France against a major storm. The remaining Spanish ships escaped into the open sea and were then blown off course, with some survivors landing in Ireland; and

(xi) The primary use of the English Navy as a pirate force was dramatically reduced upon James I of England (1603-1625) becoming King. The end to the Anglo - Spanish War by Peace Treaty in 1604 effectively ended the “legal piracy” of the English Navy and saw its gradual decline until the official and effective revival of the English “pirate” Navy from 1660 under Charles II; and

(xii) In 1706, the Act of Union by Queen Anne (1702- 1714) between England and Scotland saw the formal creation of one (1) Royal Navy combining Scottish and English ships under the first laws of Admiralty and the first Lord High Admiral being Queen Anne herself; and

(xiii) In 1710, the office of Lord High Admiral was transferred to a Board of Privy Counselors known collectively as the Lords of the Admiralty comprising of five political Lords of Admiralty rated in status from the “first” Lord to the “fifth” Lord then supported by secretaries and assistants mirrored by five (5) military lords of Admiralty known as “Sea Lords”; and

(xiv) After 1801, the position of Lords of Admiralty were depreciated against the control of the Bank of England to being Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty and agents of the Bank, rather than de jure positions.

Canon 6809 (link)

The first laws of Admiralty were not properly codified until the middle of the 17th Century, focusing equally on the discipline and maintenance of duty of Navy officers and Navy personnel as well as the operation of courts of Admiralty and capture and management of property:

(i) The first laws of Admiralty were introduced under Charles II through 13 Car c.9 (1661) which for the first time in history expressed clearly through thirty six (36) articles the rules and conduct of Navy personnel, the operation of courts of Admiralty and capture and management of property. The claim of legitimacy of the alleged statute by King Richard III in 1391 (15Rich2 c.3) concerning Admiralty jurisdiction and by Henry 4th in 1400 (2Hen4. c.11)  as remedy against Admiralty actions are almost certainly fraud, despite the limited remedy provided by both statutes; and

(ii) In 1690, (2W&M_S2c2) William and Mary introduced for the first time the concept of Commissioners of the Admiralty to whom were vested the full powers of the Lord High Admiral, without adding to those powers; and

(iii) In 1719, King George I introduced a new concept within Admiralty Law through 6 Geo. I. c.19 whereby those persons in “sea service” who committed crimes mentioned under 13 Car c.9 (1661) upon the shore in foreign parts were to be tried and punished as if they had been committed on the “main sea”. This was the first application of Admiralty Law on the land, in defiance of its alleged original purpose; and

(iv) In 1729, (2Geo2. c.7) the powers of Greenwich Hospital as the site of Admiralty was again expanded to include duties charged on vessels as well as the recovery of duties unpaid, therefore the effective “salvage” of revenues for the Crown as debt and tax collectors within the colonies and dominions of the British Empire; and

(v) In 1738, (11 Geo2. c.30) an extraordinary act saw the edict that the estates of all those who had not paid fines, or failed to pay and perform their duties, or were popish “recusants” were to be forfeited and transferred to the Admiralty for use and benefit of the Greenwich Hospital; and

(vi) In 1740, King George II introduced through 13 Geo. II. c. 4 in Article II the concept of three (3) commissioners being required to administer a properly constituted Admiralty court. The Act also introduced for the first time in legal history the concept that owners of ships taking commissions of letters of marque were to provide bail and security. Furthermore, in Article III, the requirement for security to prosecute a case in Admiralty was introduced making the entire administration of Admiralty courts commercial; and

(vii) In 1745, George II through 18Geo2. c.35 the Commissioners and Lord High Admiral were granted the power to commission lesser officers such as flag officers and captains to assist in the calling of courts martial; and

(viii) In 1747, (20Geo2. C.24), for the first time Greenwich Hospital became the central administration for the payment of prizes to Admiralty by privateers (licensed pirates as agents) in the service of the Crown and the central banks. In the same year, a new fund (20Geo2. c.38) was established under the guise of “widows and orphans” of injured and lost seamen. However, in effect of the act in creating a fund, the Admiralty became a private traded corporation of immense wealth and power. In the same year again, the “sinking fund” (22Geo2. c.23) was created as the public fund to which prizes and other valuables received by the Admiralty were to be transferred to the use of the Crown. The system was further refined in 1751 (24Geo2. C.44) ; and

(ix) In 1749, George II through 22 Geo. II c.33 introduced a modified Admiralty Law and modified thirty six (36) articles of the Code of Admiralty, repealing the 1661 act of Charles II. Most importantly, the revisions to Admiralty Law made clear that those administering it were to be officers under fiduciary obligations through formal oath and that no agent or privateer was to hold any position of authority or conduct proceedings within an admiralty court. Furthermore, the act made clear that a valid court of Admiralty for court - martial only existed when three (3) commissioners were duly sworn and present; and

(x) In 1752, the macabre and bizarre act (25Geo2. C.11) granted than an unspecified and unclear number referred as the body of the dead could be deposited in the vaults of Admiralty at Greenwich Hospital, demonstrating the conveyance of the poor. In the same year, an act (25Geo2. c.42) made valid all contracts issued by Admiralty through Greenwich Hospital relating to lands, tenements and hereditements and that unlike Common Law, under Admiralty Law, the Commissioners could force those who refused to entreat to be punished and to enter into contracts – an extraordinary corruption of the most ancient principle that an act through force cannot be lawful; and

(xi) In 1755 (28Geo2. c.11), then in 1756 (29Geo2. C.6), laws were passed mixing Admiralty Law with Common Law through the regulation of forces “on shore”. The laws were further refined and expanding Admiralty Law to mirror Common Law in 1760 (1Geo3. C.8), in 1761 (2Geo3. C.12) and in 1763 (4Geo3. C.8); and

(xii) In 1756, an act was introduced (29Geo2. C.27) creating the county courts of the colonies of America being Admiralty Courts. In 1757 (30Geo2. C.8), the concept of lower Admiralty Courts administered by magistrates as a form of martial law and the enforcement of injustice was introduced and then refined in (30Geo2. c.11); and

(xiii) In 1761, (2Geo3. c.31) Admiralty Law was made perpetual for the Colonies and Plantations of the United States, which remains in force up to the 21st Century; and

(xiv) In 1776, (16Geo3. C.24), the public estates held in trust were converted to private use and control of the Commissioners of the Admiralty Corporation; and

(xv) In 1793, King George III through 33 Geo.III. c.66. significantly altered and refined Admiralty Law to make clear the taking of prizes by the Admiralty courts and officers of the Crown during war as well as the procedural details of the issuing and administration of Letters of Marque. The act also reinforced the principles of those accused or “captured” requiring to provide security or “bail” in order to retrieve use of any goods seized as a prize. Under Article XIV it made clear the need to make surety under oath to obtain a valid Letter of Marque. Article XXXIV made clear the absolute forbiddance of officers of the court of Admiralty acting as an agent, or advocate or proctor in the same matter before the court. Article LXX reiterated the requirement of three (3) or more Commissioners to present to hear and adjudicate a valid case in Admiralty, while Article LXXI permitted individual commissioner or justice of the peace to gather and hear evidence, but not to rule. Article XXXIII made clear the independence of the officers and judiciary of Admiralty from having any interest whatsoever in prizes or acting as privateers or possess letters of marquee namely “ That no Judge, Register, or Deputy Register, Marshall, or Deputy Marshall, or any other Officer whomsoever, of or belonging to any Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty in Great Britain, or in any of his Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in America, or in any other of his Majesty’s Dominions, nor any Person or Persons practicing either as Advocate, Proctor or otherwise, in any such Court or Courts, shall be concerned or interested, directly or indirectly, as Owner, Part Owner, Sharer, Adventurer, in any private Ship or Ships, or Vessel or Vessels of War whatsoever, having any Commission or Commissions, or Letter of Marque as aforesaid; and in any case such Judge, Register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Office, Advocate, or Proctor whatsoever, shall, notwithstanding this Act, be directly or indirectly concerned or interested as aforesaid, such Judge, register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Officer respectively, shall for every such Offence (being thereof lawfully convicted in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record in Great Britain or at any General Session of the Peace in any of his Majesty’s Colonies in America) absolutely forfeit his Office and Employment in and belonging to any such Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty, of what Kind or Nature so ever such Office and Employment may be”; and

(xvi) In 1797, King George III through 38 Geo. III. c.38 confirmed that subjects of America were permitted to appeal in chancery from sentences of vice - admiralty courts confirming not only the continuing function of the estates of the United States as the plantations and property of Great Britain, but the course of potential remedy against adverse action of the vice - admiralty courts; and

(xvii) In 1801, whilst hostilities with France continued, the prize (Admiralty) courts of the West Indies and America were reorganized through 41. Geo. III. c. 96 so that Admiralty Law would continue in light of possible further conflicts, independent of the hostilities at the time. Most significantly, the act reinforced the absolute division between officers of the courts and agents under letters of marque whereby one could not hold a position in such a manner. Furthermore, that judges of Admiralty were absolutely forbidden to be concerned with the care of any property of estates, namely in clause XVII “ And it be further enacted, That no person during the time he shall hold the office of judge of any of the said courts, shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, or for his benefit, act as agent for any prizes that may be captured from the enemy, or shall have any share or interest directly or indirectly in any privateer or letter of marquee, or shall be anywise concerned in the care, management, or superintendence of any estates in any island in the West Indies or on the continent of America”; and

(xviii) In 1801, through 41. Geo. III. c. 76 King George III approved the extension of the system of Letters of Marque to permit the rules of their issue and application of their issue to be widened and applied as commissioners saw fit, providing within the general bounds of the act. This coincided with the dramatic extension of the use of Letters of Marque in the American plantations under the government of the United States corporation to all branches of its government as approved by Congress; and

(xix) In 1806, through 46. Geo. III. c. 54 King George III reinforced clear the requirement of three (3) or more duly appointed commissioners in order to constitute a valid Admiralty Court throughout all dominions whether it be a court - martial or determination of prize; and

(xx) In 1810, an Act was passed being 50 Geo. III. c. 118 regulating the office of registrars of Admiralty Prize Courts whereby the deduction of expenses from any “fees, dues, perquisites, emoluments or profits” and incident to the duties of offices was confirmed as lawful providing the remainder was carried to an account of the Consolidated Fund controlled by the Bank of England. This confirmed the admiralty courts as now purely organized “pseudo - legal” commercial agencies and not under any pretence of justice; and

(xxi) In 1813, an Act was passed being 53 Geo. III. c. 151 regulating the financial handling of monies, bills of exchange and various government securities associated with Admiralty Courts including procedures and the obligation to deposit and report funds to the Bank of England and for the Admiralty Courts to effectively act as an agency and branch of the Bank in the management of all associated securities; and

(xxii) In 1816 through (56 Geo. III. c.31) and an Act entitled “An Act for transferring all Contracts and Securities entered into with or given to the Commissioners for Transports to the Commissioners of the Navy and Victualling”, with “victualling” being a deliberately obscure word meaning food and simple agriculture as “small estates”, whereby for the first time Employment Contracts, Sale of Land Contracts and Tenancy Contracts were to be determined by the laws of Admiralty and not land courts; and

(xxiii) In 1816, through an extraordinary act 56 Geo.III. c.82 the judicial acts of surrogates of vice - admiralty courts appointed to act as judges of such courts during vacancies in those offices by the said judges or by the governors of the plantations and colonies in which such courts are were rendered valid, thus permitting for the first time agents to act in such capacity through Admiralty (in direct defiance of previous Admiralty law) providing such judicial offices were considered vacant; and

(xxiv) In 1822, through 3 Geo. IV c.19, the minimum number of commissioners needed to convene a proper Admiralty Court and execute valid judicial acts was reduced from three (3) to two (2) where the number of commissioners in a particular court jurisdiction was less than six (6). The most noticeable effect of this act is the present day magistrates courts in Admiralty, compared to the District and Supreme Courts where the existence of six (6) or more justices require a quorum of three (3) or more for a valid Admiralty Court to be convened; and

(xxv) In 1823, through 4 Geo. IV. c. 41 all “vessels” were required to be registered under admiralty to encourage “shipping” and “navigation” as euphemisms for trade. The act made clear that no “vessel” may enjoy privileges unless registered.

(xxvi) In 1827 through 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c.65 reinforced the powers of two (2) commissioners in signing an official act under admiralty law, changing also the structure of the board of Lord High Admiral to a council; and

(xxvii) In 1830 (1Will. IV. c.68) and an Act entitled “An Act for the more effectual Protection of Main Contractors, Stage Coach Proprietors, and other common Carriers for Hire, against the Loss of or Injury to Parcels or Packages delivered to them for Conveyance or Custody …etc” whereby for the first time, the liability of Agents or Brokers was limited and indemnified against loss under circumstances, subject to the Agent or Broker possessing a proper license and following proper procedures; and

(xxviii) In 1832 through 2 Will. IV c.40 Admiralty Law was further refined with the commercial administration of the Navy and the extension of Admiralty Courts over the full range of fiduciary duties of affairs of officers, marines and seaman, in particular the determination of probate and will and testaments and the adjudication of estate matters of as if land courts - a significant historic event; and

(xxix) The concept of Contracts connected with the simple delivery of goods as Letters and Packets for money between a sender and receiver was first introduced in 1835 (5 & 6 Will. IV. c.25) through an Act entitled “An Act to extend the Accommodation by the Post to and from Foreign Parts, and for other Purposes relating to the Post Office” whereby for the first time certain Letters and Packets were registered as a Contract, giving birth to the Simple Contract; and(xxx) 

(xxx) In 1836 (6 Will. IV c.85) through an Act entitled “An Act for Marriages in England” for the first time in history, marriages were reduced to Corporate Contracts under commercial License, thereafter producing not living beings, but Things and commodities as less than slaves. The only people excluded from such an abomination by §2 were those who profess the nominally commercial Christian sects of Quakers or Jews as all others thereafter were condemned to conversion to commercial chattel as “things”. In the same year through (6 Will. IV c.86) all Births, Deaths and Marriages were required to be centrally Registered; and

(xxxi) The creation of people into “vessels” by statute was created with Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1836 (c. 86) whereby all births were to be registered and sent to a General Registry Office. The key word “Birth” directly implies a vessel. To ensure Admiralty was connected to the procedures of “births, deaths and marriages”, several clauses made clear the connection such as XXI. Being Registry of children born at sea. In later decades, the introduction of “health acts” that required “births in hospitals” meant that by the beginning of the 20th century almost 99% of infants were born at sea by virtue of being born on board a british vessel being a hospital; and

(xxxii) In 1837 (7 Will. IV c.3) through an Act entitled “An Act transferring to the Commissioners of the Admiralty all Contracts, Bonds and other Securities entered into with the Postmaster General in relation to the Packet Service”, all Simple Contracts validated by registration through a valid Post Office or court having Postal powers, were now to be determined in any dispute by the laws of Admiralty and not land courts. Thus from 1837, all determination of disputes concerning all types of Contracts were now automatically subject to being determined by the laws of Admiralty in any court with valid Admiralty powers; and

(xxxiii) In 1838 (1 Vict. c.10) through an Act entitled “An Act to make good certain Contracts which have been or may be entered into by certain Banking and other Copartnerships”, for the first time a Contract could be entered into by a Spiritual Person in relation to Corporations, Associations and Copartnerships without such a Contract being void, by virtue of Contracts originally being designed for lesser persons and for voluntary enslavement and servitude.

(xxxiv) The Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 made clear the extraordinary power and transition of Admiralty to the land by permitting a claimed crime on the “high seas” to then be transferred to a specific location on land and to be treated in law as if it had occurred on the land. Thus, providing the legal argument that the original crime occurred “on the high seas”, the matter could be heard by an Admiralty court as if a matter of common law on the land. This act helped precipitate the creation of the absurdity of placing the “high water marks” of various states and counties on the highest peaks so that “all alleged crimes” were committed on the “high seas” and thus subject to Admiralty. The accompany rules of “summary justice” were introduced later under Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848); and

(xxxv) In 1845, by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 the registration of “vessels” was further refined to identify them as British vessels under one of the largest acts in the 19th Century (over 140 pages). The act reinforced in Article II that no “ship” or “vessel” as euphemisms for companies and bodies may be entitled to any privileges of a “British - registered ship” unless registered. This act is also the first time that "Birth" and "Birth Certificates" associated with people are connected with "Ships" and "Vessels" and openly to Admiralty Law; and

(xxxvi) The application of Admiralty law more widely to criminal matters greatly expanded with the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848) whereby the traditional rules of common law such as original writs and right of reply and right to jury appeared to be “suspended” in preference to a faster, less rigorous form of justice or “summary justice” (itself an oxymoron). This act followed the act of Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 (1844) that placed common law and all previous statute law in the administration of justice in the lowers courts with the operation of Admiralty law; and

(xxxvii) In 1854, the act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 78 was significant in introducing for the first time the use of stamps on legal documents in Admiralty – the first time stamps were required on legal documents – in lieu of small fees for lodgement. This act is the origin of the use of stamps on such documents and enabled judges, clerks and courts of Admiralty to then recoup such fees from the Consolidated Fund, also rendering it no longer necessary to publish such legal notices in the London Gazette as the cancelled stamp denoted the proper “delivery” as well as “publication” and “public notice” of the legal instrument

(xxxviii) In 1859, through the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 6 Act, for the first time in history, Serjeants, Barristers - At - Law, Attorneys and Solicitors were granted permission to practice in Admiralty Courts, thus moving closer to Admiralty courts being full mirrors of land courts; and

(xxxix) In 1863, first through 26 & 27 Vict. c.24, the former “back door” through 56 Geo.III. c.82 whereby surrogates as agents could also act in the vacant roles of offices was clarified. For example, under article 4, where the office of a judge of Admiralty court is vacant, the Chief Justice or Principal Judicial Officer becomes the ex officio Judge of the Vice - Admiralty Court until notification is received and one is appointed to that vacant office. This act further reinforced the technique and explanation for why some jurisdictions from 1863 failed to duly appointed officers in the manner prescribed. Through 26 & 27 Vict. c.116 the concept of agents for prizes was reinforced with clear identification in clause 10 that no person holding officer under the crown may act as an agent; and

(xl) In 1864 and then in 1865, major changes to Admiralty law were instituted through (27&28Vict.c.24) and (27&28Vict. c.25) in the key role of “agents” replacing notions of “privateers” and the conduct of Admiralty Courts and procedures in time of war, particularly in treating people as commodities via the 1845 act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 89) and the registration of people as vessels and commodities. In the same year, previous prize acts then appeared to be repealed by (27&28Vict. c.34), but on the condition “only if their effects were no longer in operation”. Thus, for the first time, a major historic section of Admiralty law was removed from the public record and made secret via repeal, such as acts pertaining to America and the United States, which remained technically still in operation because of ongoing declarations of war; and

(xli) In 1865, Admiralty gained control of all property of alleged deceased (28&29Vict. c.111) making any court claiming to be a "Probate Court" an admission of Admiralty Jurisdiction. The Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act 1867 (30&31Vict. c.114)  while exclusively for the jurisdiction of Ireland is nonetheless instructive as broader knowledge of Admiralty in demonstrating the limited rights of Admiralty to those accused and its summary form and function in one (1) act; and

(xlii) The completion of Admiralty law replacing common law within the courts to “mimic” as pseudo law that believed as common law was largely completed with the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31&32Vict. c.78); and

(xliii) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1865 included in 1868 the effective "end" of any operational Common Law courts with Admiralty in operation in County Courts (31&32Vict. c.71) and the Admiralty Suit Proceedings (31&32Vict. c.78) which was followed up by Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (42&43Vict. c.49) that established the framework of the modern Admiralty courts in operation throughout the Western - Roman law operating pseudo - legal form of admiralty, masquerading as common law; and

(xlv) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1868 include Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act 1878 c. 53 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (53&54Vict. c.27).